Slog
News & ArtsFriday, February 3, 2012
LGBTQITSLFA Hey, National Reporters: Someone Needs to Challenge Rick Santorum on This "Marriage Is Not a Right" Bullshit
Posted by Dan Savage on Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 4:20 PM
Rick ("to remove with your tongue") Santorum ("the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex") today:
Rick Santorum told a gay man in Fulton, Missouri Friday afternoon that he didn’t deserve the “privilege” of marriage because his same-sex relationship does not “benefit” society in the same way that opposite-sex marriage does. Marriage, Santorum explained is an “intrinsic good” in which gay and lesbian people should not be allowed to partake in.
So... my same-sex marriage hasn't benefited society in the same way that, say, Scott Peterson's opposite-sex marriage has.
The Supreme Court has ruled time and again—at least when it comes to heteros—that marriage is a fundamental human right. The question we're wrestling with now is whether gay people are humans and therefore entitled to fundamental human rights. Courts have ruled that states can prevent murderers and rapists and child molesters from living in certain neighborhoods, from voting, from driving. But the state cannot prevent them from marrying:
Joseph Lyle Menendez (born January 10, 1968) and Erik Galen Menendez (born November 27, 1970) are brothers who are known for their conviction in a highly publicized trial for the shotgun murders in 1989 of their wealthy parents, entertainment executive Jose Menendez and his wife Mary "Kitty" Menendez (née Anderson).... Since entering prison, both brothers have married, even though California does not allow conjugal visits for those convicted of murder or for those serving life sentences.
How do the marriages of Joseph and Erik Menendez "benefit society" exactly? Someone needs to put that question to Rick Santorum.
1
I was just thinking how few people are voting for this so-called "conservative" and his extremist views. It's apparent by now that despite what some Republicans say, the truth is they see America doesn't buy this right wing bullshit. It may play well with a few Catholic ostriches but it's getting easier to refute. Their argument has changed from "it hurts their marriages" to now "they don't count anyway like hetero marriages do". Lies just keep piling up.
2
Wait, where did that definition for "Rick" come from? I love it. I've been trying to Rick a piece of food from between 2 of my back teeth for several minutes now, but I think I'm going to have to go for the floss.
3
I'm just pissed because I got straight-married for the specific purpose of ruining society, only to find that it's just not possible no matter how terrible I am at it. Apparently it's only the gheyz who get to do that.
4
Jesus H. Bazynski, Santorum's too dumb to live...
Look at it this way, Dan: this particular run-up to the Presidential election has featured such gob-smacking statements from this group of Republicans that it is becoming clearer and clearer (to anyone with 3 brain cells to rub together) just how foolish and unfounded all their homo-fear really is. These squiggly little guys are FINALLY coming out from under the rocks where they've been hiding, and the harsh light of reality is exposing them for what they are.
Even folks who were maybe on the fence about marriage equality can see the lies, the hypocrisy, the hysteria.. These are just the last desperate bleatings of the Fearful Obsolete...
Look at it this way, Dan: this particular run-up to the Presidential election has featured such gob-smacking statements from this group of Republicans that it is becoming clearer and clearer (to anyone with 3 brain cells to rub together) just how foolish and unfounded all their homo-fear really is. These squiggly little guys are FINALLY coming out from under the rocks where they've been hiding, and the harsh light of reality is exposing them for what they are.
Even folks who were maybe on the fence about marriage equality can see the lies, the hypocrisy, the hysteria.. These are just the last desperate bleatings of the Fearful Obsolete...
5
Santorum knows he isn't in it to win it anymore. He's going straight out on his true colors. Doomsday, bigotry, classism. He IS going out like that.
6
Why is he wasting so much time and effort inventing "reasons"? I thought "But The Bible" was sufficient to win all such arguments.
7
From 1996 - present my mother has lived with her boyfriend, my parents were married from the late 70's until my father's death in 2006. We children stayed with my father, they never divorced and while my father was able to claim dependent children on his tax return my mother allowed him to claim her on his tax return (she never worked after leaving). Therefore my dad could get a larger return while we kids were at home. This was their form of child support. After the youngest left home my mom's BF started to claim her on his tax return (she's a stay at home .. home maker).
My mom was raised catholic, they were refused to be married the church of her childhood because they hadn't attended pre-marital counseling and I don't think the church knew my mom was already pregnant.
My mom was raised catholic, they were refused to be married the church of her childhood because they hadn't attended pre-marital counseling and I don't think the church knew my mom was already pregnant.
8
So, hold up: Santorum, and anti-gay people like him, believe and argue that marriage is the most fundamental, sacred, essential relationship in society, and that it is the thing that keeps families together, keeps us moral, keeps society from crumbling into an apocalyptic dog-fucking baby-eating anarchy... and now he says that marriage is a privilege?
I wonder if he sees the disconnect there. Is it a sacred responsibility and a moral necessity, or is it something we don't want to let people have?
I wonder if he sees the disconnect there. Is it a sacred responsibility and a moral necessity, or is it something we don't want to let people have?
9
@ 8, calling any right that the GOP wants to deny someone a privilege is par for the course. Scalia was pretty insistent that voting is not a right, and that was when Bush v. Gore was being argued before the Supreme Court.
10
Also it's important to point out that the 14th amendment says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"
So when people say marriage is a privilege, not a right...
So when people say marriage is a privilege, not a right...
11
This is the question that every opponent of marriage equality needs to be asked:
Why do convicted straight murderers have more rights than law-abiding gay people?
Why do convicted straight murderers have more rights than law-abiding gay people?
12
What an ignorant gas bag Santorum is.
I had no idea I was involuntarily benefitting society. Divorce court, here I come. . .
I had no idea I was involuntarily benefitting society. Divorce court, here I come. . .
13
I hang on some conservative-leaning sites where marriage comes up a lot. Whenever someone makes the "only marriage between a man and a woman serves a public interest" argument, I ask them to explain how Newt Gingrich's most recent marriage serves a public interest.
I have never received an answer.
I have never received an answer.
16
reporters challenging statements? candidates talking to reporters who would?
which america is this supposed to happen in?
which america is this supposed to happen in?
17
>>"Someone Needs to Challenge Rick Santorum on This "Marriage Is Not a Right" Bullshit"
Yeah, I would refer him to Loving v. Virginia (decided 45 years ago), as just one case among many in which the Supreme Court reaffirmed marriage as one of the "basic civil rights of man" protected by the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
Yeah, I would refer him to Loving v. Virginia (decided 45 years ago), as just one case among many in which the Supreme Court reaffirmed marriage as one of the "basic civil rights of man" protected by the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
18
@10: Unfortunately, the "Privileges or Immunities" Clause is pretty much a dead letter - it was read out of the Constitution in the 19th century, and has never done any work since.
19
Santorum is fucking catholic papist pedophile enabling pig shit filth. Trying to reason with him is essentially like trying to reason with a bad bowel movement. It just can't be done.
21
I would say that they benefit society in that married men are more settled and less likely to engage in unrest. In the case of the Menendez brothers, I'd say they needed more settling than most. It has not benefited society the way typical marriages do: In those cases, people settle down, make roots in the community, buy houses and furniture, have or adopt children and basically form the building blocks of Western civilization.
@19 Santorum might be bad but being Catholic is good. Catholics in general don't deserve the things you're saying.
@19 Santorum might be bad but being Catholic is good. Catholics in general don't deserve the things you're saying.
22
We see what you girls are doing here....
because some hetero marriages are crappy then it follows that anybody can do whatever the fuck they want and call it "marriage".
that's brilliant.
because some hetero marriages are crappy then it follows that anybody can do whatever the fuck they want and call it "marriage".
that's brilliant.
23
little Danny likes to pretend homosexual "marriage" is
Just As Good as Real Marriage™
but we wonder what would happen
if EVERYBODY in the world decided to do a
homosexual "marriage".
Help us out girls....
What if EVERYBODY in the world decided to do a
homosexual "marriage"....
What kind of society would that create?
Just As Good as Real Marriage™
but we wonder what would happen
if EVERYBODY in the world decided to do a
homosexual "marriage".
Help us out girls....
What if EVERYBODY in the world decided to do a
homosexual "marriage"....
What kind of society would that create?
24
Cause if Danny's homosexual Canadian (is that redundant?...) "marriage" is JUST AS GOOD as a Real Marriage then a society in which EVERYONE did a homosexual "marriage" would be Just As Good as a society in which everybody did a real marriage.
Help us out girls.....
Would a society in which EVERYONE did a homosexual "marriage" would be Just As Good as a society in which everybody did a real marriage?
Help us out girls.....
Would a society in which EVERYONE did a homosexual "marriage" would be Just As Good as a society in which everybody did a real marriage?
25
Speaking of Santorum, a funny GIF found on Reddit today: http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lysrbv…
26
@23: What if EVERYBODY in the world decided to become an astronaut...
What kind of society would that create?
Well, we wouldn't have a society; we'd all starve to death, since astronauts aren't farmers. By your logic, nobody should be an astronaut. Go to children across the nation and tell them that being an astronaut is sinful and wrong, and that anyone who wants to be an astronaut needs to go see a doctor. Or is your reasoning perhaps not the sharpest?
People like you get punched in the face by our nation's heroes, you know.
What kind of society would that create?
Well, we wouldn't have a society; we'd all starve to death, since astronauts aren't farmers. By your logic, nobody should be an astronaut. Go to children across the nation and tell them that being an astronaut is sinful and wrong, and that anyone who wants to be an astronaut needs to go see a doctor. Or is your reasoning perhaps not the sharpest?
People like you get punched in the face by our nation's heroes, you know.
27
I have this great animated GIF of Santorum in one of my tabs and I can't for the life of me figure out who linked me to it. If it was one of you, thanks.
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lysrbv…
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lysrbv…
28
Yeah.
The marriages of Joseph and Erik Menendez....
What a crock.
You know,
some public schools are appalling shithole failures.
How does ShitHole High "benefit society", exactly?
So no one would object if we rename the local video game arcade "Mall High School" and start awarding high school diplomas to any kid who puts in some hours there.
The marriages of Joseph and Erik Menendez....
What a crock.
You know,
some public schools are appalling shithole failures.
How does ShitHole High "benefit society", exactly?
So no one would object if we rename the local video game arcade "Mall High School" and start awarding high school diplomas to any kid who puts in some hours there.
29
@28: Schools educate kids. Arcades entertain kids.
Straight people parent. Gay people parent.
Where is the all-important difference between straights and queers?
Straight people parent. Gay people parent.
Where is the all-important difference between straights and queers?
30
26
Ah- our resident ShitHole High alumni weighs in.....
Your analogy isn't.
Lets fix it for you:
What if everybody got an education and highly achieved in their chosen field?
Astronauts, sure.
And dentists and teachers and community organizers.
Everyone educated and productive and contributing.
How would THAT society be?
Compared to one in which EVERYBODY took a pass from education;
loafed,
played gameboys all day,
watched Pokemon,
never got an education or a job.
Sure society can endure a few galoots who do that.
maybe 2%?
But society sure as fuck wouldn't want to reward or recognize that behavior.
Wouldn't want to award scholarships in Fucking your Life Away;
wouldn't grant diplomas to kids who Goofed Off all day;
wouldn't declare that loafing around
and not getting an education was JUST AS GOOD
as getting an education and a job.
Would it?
Ah- our resident ShitHole High alumni weighs in.....
Your analogy isn't.
Lets fix it for you:
What if everybody got an education and highly achieved in their chosen field?
Astronauts, sure.
And dentists and teachers and community organizers.
Everyone educated and productive and contributing.
How would THAT society be?
Compared to one in which EVERYBODY took a pass from education;
loafed,
played gameboys all day,
watched Pokemon,
never got an education or a job.
Sure society can endure a few galoots who do that.
maybe 2%?
But society sure as fuck wouldn't want to reward or recognize that behavior.
Wouldn't want to award scholarships in Fucking your Life Away;
wouldn't grant diplomas to kids who Goofed Off all day;
wouldn't declare that loafing around
and not getting an education was JUST AS GOOD
as getting an education and a job.
Would it?
31
29
Heterosexuals have kids and ARE parents.
(Some) Homosexuals try to mimic heterosexual behavior.
Homosexuals choose a sexual behavior that is defined by being non-reproductive.
Heterosexuals have kids and ARE parents.
(Some) Homosexuals try to mimic heterosexual behavior.
Homosexuals choose a sexual behavior that is defined by being non-reproductive.
32
29
You conspicuously dodge the question.
Would a society in which EVERYONE did a homosexual "marriage" would be Just As Good as a society in which everybody did a real marriage?
You conspicuously dodge the question.
Would a society in which EVERYONE did a homosexual "marriage" would be Just As Good as a society in which everybody did a real marriage?
34
Is Danny going to teach his kid that homosexual pairings are
JUST AS GOOD for society as Real Marriage?
Is Queer,Inc going to infiltrate schools and the popular culture and brainwash credulous kids into believing that homosexuality is JUST AS GOOD as heterosexuality?
surely they wouldn't....
How would a society in which everyone practiced a homosexual lifestyle be?
Would it even survive?
Would it be JUST AS GOOD as a society in which everyone was heterosexual?
JUST AS GOOD for society as Real Marriage?
Is Queer,Inc going to infiltrate schools and the popular culture and brainwash credulous kids into believing that homosexuality is JUST AS GOOD as heterosexuality?
surely they wouldn't....
How would a society in which everyone practiced a homosexual lifestyle be?
Would it even survive?
Would it be JUST AS GOOD as a society in which everyone was heterosexual?
35
How DO the marriages of Joseph and Erik Menendez "benefit society" exactly?
it is sick that they are allowed to marry women.
However, in an enlighten society, Joseph and Erik could marry each other.......
it is sick that they are allowed to marry women.
However, in an enlighten society, Joseph and Erik could marry each other.......
36
Ted Olson and David Boies have stated that their main argument to the Supremes this year to strike down Prop 8 is the many times the Court has ruled that marriage is a right. It's on the basis, and equal protection under the law, that they will argue. And win.
37
The point being, TROLL @35, they ARE allowed to marry women. Whether you feel it is "sick" or not, that is the law in this country. Now explain why law-abiding gay people have fewer rights than convicted murderers? 10+ posts on this topic and you don't have an answer?
38
Gay people and normal people and convicted murderers are subject to the same marriage laws applied equally.
Now stop your sniveling and explain what benefit society gains from recognizing homosexual pairings as JUST AS GOOD as real marriages and subsidizing them.
Now stop your sniveling and explain what benefit society gains from recognizing homosexual pairings as JUST AS GOOD as real marriages and subsidizing them.
39
@30: That's not the question I asked you. What if EVERYONE on the planet was an astronaut specifically? Would that be better or worse than if everyone was a farmer?
The point I made was that your reasoning was bullshit. As it usually is.
@31: My cousin and her partner have two sons, each one of whom is the biological child of one of them. They ARE parents in all senses of the word. How is their commitment inferior to a heterosexual marriage? Suppose a man and a woman each have a child by a previous engagement, and they get married. How is what they have different from the case of my cousin and her partner?
@34: Are you claiming that homosexual marriages AREN'T as good as heterosexual marriages?
There is as yet insufficient evidence either way, so we must fail to reject the null hypothesis. What is the null hypothesis? That both are equivalent with regard to the measured quantity. The burden of proof is on the person who asserts a meaningful difference. But go ahead and blithely ignore statistical reasoning if you must; we certainly can't think any less of you than we do already.
The point I made was that your reasoning was bullshit. As it usually is.
@31: My cousin and her partner have two sons, each one of whom is the biological child of one of them. They ARE parents in all senses of the word. How is their commitment inferior to a heterosexual marriage? Suppose a man and a woman each have a child by a previous engagement, and they get married. How is what they have different from the case of my cousin and her partner?
@34: Are you claiming that homosexual marriages AREN'T as good as heterosexual marriages?
There is as yet insufficient evidence either way, so we must fail to reject the null hypothesis. What is the null hypothesis? That both are equivalent with regard to the measured quantity. The burden of proof is on the person who asserts a meaningful difference. But go ahead and blithely ignore statistical reasoning if you must; we certainly can't think any less of you than we do already.
40
@38:
Black people and normal people and convicted murderers are subject to the same marriage laws applied equally.
Now stop your sniveling and explain what benefit society gains from recognizing miscegenational pairings as JUST AS GOOD as real marriages and subsidizing them.
Oops...I accidentally the whole issue.
Black people and normal people and convicted murderers are subject to the same marriage laws applied equally.
Now stop your sniveling and explain what benefit society gains from recognizing miscegenational pairings as JUST AS GOOD as real marriages and subsidizing them.
Oops...I accidentally the whole issue.
42
39
"homosexuals" (remember, there is no such thing...) who get kids of their own do so by exercising their innate heterosexuality.
Two homosexuals paired up and caring for children are mimicking heterosexual marriage.
sure....
any adults in any combination can provide childcare.
but we don't have to call it a "marriage" in order for that to happen.
and society has no interest in pretending random associations of adults are Just As Good as marriage.
The hypothesis is not null, your reasoning is.
There is lots of evidence that heterosexual married couples provide the best environment in which to raise children.
And there is the entire history of mankind,
with many different family configurations,
and never in the history of the race
any society
that found success with homosexual "marriage",
to demonstrate that homosexual pairings are NOT Just As Good or equvalent in any meaningful way to heterosexual marriage.
Danny touts a survey of 70 self selected atypical lesbians with an astronomical divorce rate as proof that homosexual pairings are Just As good, no- BETTER!- than heterosexual marriage.
It is like suggesting that horses are better orators than humans because he watched Mr Ed as a kid....
Take half of all homosexuals, pair them up and give them babies to raise, and compare THAT to heterosexual marriage.
.
You conspicuously continue to dodge the question.
Would a society in which EVERYONE did a homosexual "marriage" would be Just As Good as a society in which everybody did a real marriage?
Has ANY society in the ENTIRE history of the human race had success with homosexual "marriage"?
"homosexuals" (remember, there is no such thing...) who get kids of their own do so by exercising their innate heterosexuality.
Two homosexuals paired up and caring for children are mimicking heterosexual marriage.
sure....
any adults in any combination can provide childcare.
but we don't have to call it a "marriage" in order for that to happen.
and society has no interest in pretending random associations of adults are Just As Good as marriage.
The hypothesis is not null, your reasoning is.
There is lots of evidence that heterosexual married couples provide the best environment in which to raise children.
And there is the entire history of mankind,
with many different family configurations,
and never in the history of the race
any society
that found success with homosexual "marriage",
to demonstrate that homosexual pairings are NOT Just As Good or equvalent in any meaningful way to heterosexual marriage.
Danny touts a survey of 70 self selected atypical lesbians with an astronomical divorce rate as proof that homosexual pairings are Just As good, no- BETTER!- than heterosexual marriage.
It is like suggesting that horses are better orators than humans because he watched Mr Ed as a kid....
Take half of all homosexuals, pair them up and give them babies to raise, and compare THAT to heterosexual marriage.
.
You conspicuously continue to dodge the question.
Would a society in which EVERYONE did a homosexual "marriage" would be Just As Good as a society in which everybody did a real marriage?
Has ANY society in the ENTIRE history of the human race had success with homosexual "marriage"?
43
40
Good point.
A society in which EVERYONE entered into a mixed race heterosexual marriage would function just fine.
Mixed race heterosexual marriage is good for society.
Would a society in which EVERYONE did a homosexual "marriage" would be Just As Good as a society in which everybody did a real marriage?
You dodging and weaving and bullshitting say NO.......
Good point.
A society in which EVERYONE entered into a mixed race heterosexual marriage would function just fine.
Mixed race heterosexual marriage is good for society.
Would a society in which EVERYONE did a homosexual "marriage" would be Just As Good as a society in which everybody did a real marriage?
You dodging and weaving and bullshitting say NO.......
45
@42: You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. My cousin and her partner had their kids by IVF! Their lez cred can therefore remain untarnished, and you can therefore smoke my metaphorical pole.
"The hypothesis is not null, your reasoning is."
LOL. Someone doesn't know jack shit about statistics, eh?
@43: How would it be good for society if everyone entered into a biracial marriage? What's so special about them that makes them better than other marriages?
How would it be bad for society if everyone entered into a same-sex marriage? What's so special about them that makes them worse than other marriages?
Of course, the percentages of people WANTING to enter into a biracial or same-sex marriage are both in the single digits. So your "what if EVERYONE did it?" line of reasoning is useless. I can make a very strong argument against cheese by contemplating the calamities that would ensue if everything were to suddenly become made of cheese, but that would be an idiotic and pointless argument, as the universe is patently not going to transmutate into dairy products any more than would EVERYONE get gay married.
You claim to be declaiming the truth to us, but don't seem to know what in blazes you're talking about.
"The hypothesis is not null, your reasoning is."
LOL. Someone doesn't know jack shit about statistics, eh?
@43: How would it be good for society if everyone entered into a biracial marriage? What's so special about them that makes them better than other marriages?
How would it be bad for society if everyone entered into a same-sex marriage? What's so special about them that makes them worse than other marriages?
Of course, the percentages of people WANTING to enter into a biracial or same-sex marriage are both in the single digits. So your "what if EVERYONE did it?" line of reasoning is useless. I can make a very strong argument against cheese by contemplating the calamities that would ensue if everything were to suddenly become made of cheese, but that would be an idiotic and pointless argument, as the universe is patently not going to transmutate into dairy products any more than would EVERYONE get gay married.
You claim to be declaiming the truth to us, but don't seem to know what in blazes you're talking about.
46
45
your cuz put awful ManSperm inside her self?
how very unLesbian and unHomo.
She had to get in touch with her innate Heterosexuality to get a baby.
You are still dodging and weaving and bullshitting.
Would a society in which EVERYONE did a homosexual "marriage" be Just As Good as a society in which everybody did a real marriage?
What do you know of the percentage of people who will wish to Homo"Marry"?
If homosexual "marriage" is made legal are you going to mandate that only single digit percentages be allowed to Homo"Marry"?
Why?
What would be the harm if EVERYBODY wanted a Homo"Marriage"?
What would a society in which EVERYONE did a homosexual "marriage" look like?
in 10 years?
In 25 years?
In 55 years?
your cuz put awful ManSperm inside her self?
how very unLesbian and unHomo.
She had to get in touch with her innate Heterosexuality to get a baby.
You are still dodging and weaving and bullshitting.
Would a society in which EVERYONE did a homosexual "marriage" be Just As Good as a society in which everybody did a real marriage?
What do you know of the percentage of people who will wish to Homo"Marry"?
If homosexual "marriage" is made legal are you going to mandate that only single digit percentages be allowed to Homo"Marry"?
Why?
What would be the harm if EVERYBODY wanted a Homo"Marriage"?
What would a society in which EVERYONE did a homosexual "marriage" look like?
in 10 years?
In 25 years?
In 55 years?
47
And lest we forget that when CA did allow conjugal visits, the man who murdered Sharon Tate as she BEGGED for the life of her nearly full-term, unborn baby got married and fathered several children while in prison.
Ummm. Exactly how did society benefit from Tex Watson getting married and fucking his wife while incarcerated for the Tate-LaBianca murders?
Ummm. Exactly how did society benefit from Tex Watson getting married and fucking his wife while incarcerated for the Tate-LaBianca murders?
48
@46: Um...IVF doesn't involve putting jizz up anyone's cooch. IN VITRO FERTILIZATION, motherfucker. It means that fertilization is done IN VITRO, literally "in glass". Gametes are collected from both donors, allowed to fertilize in lab culture (usually in Petri dishes) and the resulting zygotes are implanted. You keep saying I'm just bullshitting, but you're the one here who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
A society in which everyone was in a same-sex marriage would be approximately "as good" (by whatever metrics you want to use) as a society in which everyone was in an opposite-sex marriage. Since we have no evidence either way, we fail to reject the null hypothesis and must conclude that there would be no significant difference. Why? Do you have evidence (not opinion or blustering, EVIDENCE) to the contrary?
A society in which everyone was in a same-sex marriage would be approximately "as good" (by whatever metrics you want to use) as a society in which everyone was in an opposite-sex marriage. Since we have no evidence either way, we fail to reject the null hypothesis and must conclude that there would be no significant difference. Why? Do you have evidence (not opinion or blustering, EVIDENCE) to the contrary?
49
@46 .... ah this shit is why I go up in the mornings :D The random ramblings and bumbling nonsens of a dying breed trying to justify its rights of superiority. Its like watching the history channel in the future.
50
48
"approximately"?
you're always good for a laugh....
how about by the metric of birthrate? and economics?
here is an exercise for you:
assume a starting population of 100 million with a distribution of individuals across age cohorts and average lifespan that reflect the current demographics of the US.
assume everyone in the population does homosexual "marriage". (remember that homosexual means engaging in sex with ones own gender- in our Gommorian Utopia there are no Orientation Cheaters....no "Homosexualish" CPOS....)
What will the population and age distribution be in 10 years?
In 25 years?
in 40 years?
In 55 years?
In 75 years?
OK.the math part was really easy.
now the essay questions.
discuss the effect on elementary school education and teacher's unions 10 years in.
discuss the effect on all educational institutions and the fast food industry 25 years in.
discuss the effect on the military of this Gommorian Utopia 25 years in (to make it fun lets point out that not every society is as enlighten as this one and it is bordered by a poor nation of filthy little breeders who do not believe in contraception and resent the hell out of our Gommorian heroes)
discuss the effect on Social Security and Medicare 25 years in.
continue the discussion of SS and M now 40 years in.
discuss the effect on the health care industry 40 years in.
discuss the effect on infrastructure maintenance 55 years in.
and, 55 years in, how is the military holding up?
55 years in how are SS and pensions doing?
75 years in how are we holding up? are we holding up?.....
BONUS QUESTION-
>starting with the CDC statistic that 20% of sexually active homosexual men in the twenty American cities with the largest gay communities have HIV [and half don't know it (and all seem not to give as shit....)] chart the spread of AIDS in our Gommorian Utopia. remember that these are all loyal Faggots who never cheat on the Gay. Butt , they are also loyal Danny FanBoys who are clever Monogamishits and cheat plenty on the Gays so there is lots of exchange of bodily fluids. >>Also track the rates of gonorrhea and syphilis. (remember that two thirds of all new syphilis cases in the country occur among homosexuals)
>>>estimate the date when every male in the population will have a major STD.
>>>>finally; estimate the date when the inevitable next Gay Plague will strike a population that refuses to adhere to CDC guidelines for responsible healthy sexual behavior.
Got it all?
Spoiler Alert:
If everyone did what Danny does
(or tries to do what Danny does;
remember the supply of babies that can be bought from Crack Whores
will dry up immediately in our Gommorian Utopia...)
it makes for some pretty awesome Science Fiction
but a real demographic/economic/epidemiological NIGHTMARE....
Do we really want to brainwash our kids
into believing that the nightmare is (approximately) JUST AS GOOD?
More...
"approximately"?
you're always good for a laugh....
how about by the metric of birthrate? and economics?
here is an exercise for you:
assume a starting population of 100 million with a distribution of individuals across age cohorts and average lifespan that reflect the current demographics of the US.
assume everyone in the population does homosexual "marriage". (remember that homosexual means engaging in sex with ones own gender- in our Gommorian Utopia there are no Orientation Cheaters....no "Homosexualish" CPOS....)
What will the population and age distribution be in 10 years?
In 25 years?
in 40 years?
In 55 years?
In 75 years?
OK.the math part was really easy.
now the essay questions.
discuss the effect on elementary school education and teacher's unions 10 years in.
discuss the effect on all educational institutions and the fast food industry 25 years in.
discuss the effect on the military of this Gommorian Utopia 25 years in (to make it fun lets point out that not every society is as enlighten as this one and it is bordered by a poor nation of filthy little breeders who do not believe in contraception and resent the hell out of our Gommorian heroes)
discuss the effect on Social Security and Medicare 25 years in.
continue the discussion of SS and M now 40 years in.
discuss the effect on the health care industry 40 years in.
discuss the effect on infrastructure maintenance 55 years in.
and, 55 years in, how is the military holding up?
55 years in how are SS and pensions doing?
75 years in how are we holding up? are we holding up?.....
BONUS QUESTION-
>starting with the CDC statistic that 20% of sexually active homosexual men in the twenty American cities with the largest gay communities have HIV [and half don't know it (and all seem not to give as shit....)] chart the spread of AIDS in our Gommorian Utopia. remember that these are all loyal Faggots who never cheat on the Gay. Butt , they are also loyal Danny FanBoys who are clever Monogamishits and cheat plenty on the Gays so there is lots of exchange of bodily fluids. >>Also track the rates of gonorrhea and syphilis. (remember that two thirds of all new syphilis cases in the country occur among homosexuals)
>>>estimate the date when every male in the population will have a major STD.
>>>>finally; estimate the date when the inevitable next Gay Plague will strike a population that refuses to adhere to CDC guidelines for responsible healthy sexual behavior.
Got it all?
Spoiler Alert:
If everyone did what Danny does
(or tries to do what Danny does;
remember the supply of babies that can be bought from Crack Whores
will dry up immediately in our Gommorian Utopia...)
it makes for some pretty awesome Science Fiction
but a real demographic/economic/epidemiological NIGHTMARE....
Do we really want to brainwash our kids
into believing that the nightmare is (approximately) JUST AS GOOD?
51
48
assume a starting population of 100 million with a distribution of individuals across age cohorts and average lifespan that reflect the current demographics of the US.
assume everyone in the population does homosexual "marriage". (remember that homosexual means engaging in sex with ones own gender- in our Gommorian Utopia there are no Orientation Cheaters....no "Homosexualish" CPOS....)
What will the population and age distribution be in 10 years?
In 25 years?
in 40 years?
In 55 years?
In 75 years?
OK.the math part was really easy.
assume a starting population of 100 million with a distribution of individuals across age cohorts and average lifespan that reflect the current demographics of the US.
assume everyone in the population does homosexual "marriage". (remember that homosexual means engaging in sex with ones own gender- in our Gommorian Utopia there are no Orientation Cheaters....no "Homosexualish" CPOS....)
What will the population and age distribution be in 10 years?
In 25 years?
in 40 years?
In 55 years?
In 75 years?
OK.the math part was really easy.
52
48
now the essay questions:
>discuss the effect on elementary school education and teacher's unions 10 years in.
>discuss the effect on all educational institutions and the fast food industry 25 years in.
>discuss the effect on the military of this Gommorian Utopia 25 years in (to make it fun lets point out that not every society is as enlighten as this one and it is bordered by a poor nation of filthy little breeders who do not believe in contraception and resent the hell out of our Gommorian heroes)
>discuss the effect on Social Security and Medicare 25 years in.
>continue the discussion of SS and M now 40 years in.
>discuss the effect on the health care industry 40 years in.
>discuss the effect on infrastructure maintenance 55 years in.
>and, 55 years in, how is the military holding up?
>55 years in how are SS and pensions doing?
>75 years in how are we holding up?
are we holding up?.....
now the essay questions:
>discuss the effect on elementary school education and teacher's unions 10 years in.
>discuss the effect on all educational institutions and the fast food industry 25 years in.
>discuss the effect on the military of this Gommorian Utopia 25 years in (to make it fun lets point out that not every society is as enlighten as this one and it is bordered by a poor nation of filthy little breeders who do not believe in contraception and resent the hell out of our Gommorian heroes)
>discuss the effect on Social Security and Medicare 25 years in.
>continue the discussion of SS and M now 40 years in.
>discuss the effect on the health care industry 40 years in.
>discuss the effect on infrastructure maintenance 55 years in.
>and, 55 years in, how is the military holding up?
>55 years in how are SS and pensions doing?
>75 years in how are we holding up?
are we holding up?.....
53
48
BONUS QUESTION-
>starting with the CDC statistic that 20% of sexually active homosexual men in the twenty American cities with the largest gay communities have HIV [and half don't know it (and all seem not to give as shit....)] chart the spread of AIDS in our Gommorian Utopia. remember that these are all loyal Faggots who never cheat on the Gay. Butt , they are also loyal Danny FanBoys who are clever Monogamishits and cheat plenty on the Gays so there is lots of exchange of bodily fluids. >>Also track the rates of gonorrhea and syphilis. (remember that two thirds of all new syphilis cases in the country occur among homosexuals)
>>>estimate the date when every male in the population will have a major STD.
>>>>finally; estimate the date when the inevitable next Gay Plague will strike a population that refuses to adhere to CDC guidelines for responsible healthy sexual behavior.
Got it all?
BONUS QUESTION-
>starting with the CDC statistic that 20% of sexually active homosexual men in the twenty American cities with the largest gay communities have HIV [and half don't know it (and all seem not to give as shit....)] chart the spread of AIDS in our Gommorian Utopia. remember that these are all loyal Faggots who never cheat on the Gay. Butt , they are also loyal Danny FanBoys who are clever Monogamishits and cheat plenty on the Gays so there is lots of exchange of bodily fluids. >>Also track the rates of gonorrhea and syphilis. (remember that two thirds of all new syphilis cases in the country occur among homosexuals)
>>>estimate the date when every male in the population will have a major STD.
>>>>finally; estimate the date when the inevitable next Gay Plague will strike a population that refuses to adhere to CDC guidelines for responsible healthy sexual behavior.
Got it all?
54
48
Spoiler Alert:
If everyone did what Danny does
(or tries to do what Danny does;
remember the supply of babies
that can be bought from Crack Whores
will dry up immediately in our Gommorian Utopia...)
it makes for some pretty awesome Science Fiction
but a real demographic/economic/epidemiological NIGHTMARE....
Do we really want to brainwash our kids
into believing that the nightmare is
(approximately)
JUST AS GOOD?
Spoiler Alert:
If everyone did what Danny does
(or tries to do what Danny does;
remember the supply of babies
that can be bought from Crack Whores
will dry up immediately in our Gommorian Utopia...)
it makes for some pretty awesome Science Fiction
but a real demographic/economic/epidemiological NIGHTMARE....
Do we really want to brainwash our kids
into believing that the nightmare is
(approximately)
JUST AS GOOD?
55
Welcome back, Venomlash. You weren't posting as frequently for a while and I missed your careful and humiliating deconstructions of the troll arguments.
Also, thanks for that: If my conservative born-again cow-orker ever begins babbling on about gay marriage, you have provided me with every rebuttal for every argument he is likely to bring up.
Also, thanks for that: If my conservative born-again cow-orker ever begins babbling on about gay marriage, you have provided me with every rebuttal for every argument he is likely to bring up.
56
@50: I say approximately because we don't have any evidence either way, and so there may be differences that are too small to be statistically significant.
You're trying to make the point that bad things will happen if everyone only has gay sex. We're not talking about gay sex here; we're talking about same-sex marriage. Gay sex is legal, whether or not you want any.
And you know what? The nice thing about homosexuality is that it is only a characteristic of between 3 and 10% of the population. The vast majority of people (straight folks) will not get gay married even if it is legal. So what exactly makes you think that everyone would?
Your best argument so far is a patently impossible scenario wildly extrapolating from a flawed conception of the issue at hand. I think that says a thing or two.
You're trying to make the point that bad things will happen if everyone only has gay sex. We're not talking about gay sex here; we're talking about same-sex marriage. Gay sex is legal, whether or not you want any.
And you know what? The nice thing about homosexuality is that it is only a characteristic of between 3 and 10% of the population. The vast majority of people (straight folks) will not get gay married even if it is legal. So what exactly makes you think that everyone would?
Your best argument so far is a patently impossible scenario wildly extrapolating from a flawed conception of the issue at hand. I think that says a thing or two.
57
When citizens in their 20s are finally heard, it won't be surprising to learn that they don't really care as much about marriage as their parents did. As it is people are marrying later, if at all.
58
56
any evidence?
you are only half right.
there is extensive scientific literature extolling the relative advantages and benefits that heterosexual married couples provide their children.
there is virtually no longterm scientific study of homosexual marriage*, and no study of large groups of homosexual parented children and no intergenerational study of the effects of homosexual marriage.
there is the negative evidence that in the whole history of mankind, among all cultures, among pagans and humanists and polytheists and among cultures that embraced homosexuality itself without stigma and even though marriage itself is universal there has NEVER been a culture that embraced homosexual marriage.
.
*the most striking things about Danny's favorite lesbian "study" that he trots out every month is how incredibly high the divorce rate among the study group is and how non-representative of even lesbians the sample is.....
--------
Why is the nice thing about homosexuality
the fact that so few people are afflicted with it?
Because it is so destructive?
If the percentage of homosexuals creeps above 10% will the herd need to be thinned?
How do you have any idea what percentage of people will embrace homosexuality or homosexual "marriage" if it continues to be pushed and glamorized to children?
What percentage of the population in a highly educated literate nation do you suppose would embrace the idea of murdering millions of their fellow citizens just because they are Jews?
one percent? two?
it took less than a decade to indoctrinate a generation of loyal Nazis. If you get them young enough and have control of the popular culture and educational system you can brainwash a generation to accept ANYTHING.
You seem to naively unaware of the immense power of marketing....
What makes you think that if Danny and Lady Gaga and the rest of Queer,Inc are given unrestricted access to America's children that those children will not in fact buy the bullshit that homosexuality is JUST AS GOOD (no....BETTER!!) than their parent's stodgy old heterosexuality?
And even if the percentage remains below the level needed to destroy society, why would society subsidize and promote a lifestyle that would destroy society if it were embraced?
Should we also go back to promoting cigarette smoking?
Surely not EVERYONE will smoke......
More...
any evidence?
you are only half right.
there is extensive scientific literature extolling the relative advantages and benefits that heterosexual married couples provide their children.
there is virtually no longterm scientific study of homosexual marriage*, and no study of large groups of homosexual parented children and no intergenerational study of the effects of homosexual marriage.
there is the negative evidence that in the whole history of mankind, among all cultures, among pagans and humanists and polytheists and among cultures that embraced homosexuality itself without stigma and even though marriage itself is universal there has NEVER been a culture that embraced homosexual marriage.
.
*the most striking things about Danny's favorite lesbian "study" that he trots out every month is how incredibly high the divorce rate among the study group is and how non-representative of even lesbians the sample is.....
--------
Why is the nice thing about homosexuality
the fact that so few people are afflicted with it?
Because it is so destructive?
If the percentage of homosexuals creeps above 10% will the herd need to be thinned?
How do you have any idea what percentage of people will embrace homosexuality or homosexual "marriage" if it continues to be pushed and glamorized to children?
What percentage of the population in a highly educated literate nation do you suppose would embrace the idea of murdering millions of their fellow citizens just because they are Jews?
one percent? two?
it took less than a decade to indoctrinate a generation of loyal Nazis. If you get them young enough and have control of the popular culture and educational system you can brainwash a generation to accept ANYTHING.
You seem to naively unaware of the immense power of marketing....
What makes you think that if Danny and Lady Gaga and the rest of Queer,Inc are given unrestricted access to America's children that those children will not in fact buy the bullshit that homosexuality is JUST AS GOOD (no....BETTER!!) than their parent's stodgy old heterosexuality?
And even if the percentage remains below the level needed to destroy society, why would society subsidize and promote a lifestyle that would destroy society if it were embraced?
Should we also go back to promoting cigarette smoking?
Surely not EVERYONE will smoke......
59
56 . . .Not any evidence?
You are only half right.
There is extensive scientific literature extolling the relative advantages and benefits that heterosexual married couples provide their children.
There is virtually no longterm scientific study of homosexual marriage*, and no study of large groups of homosexual parented children and no intergenerational study of the effects of homosexual marriage.
There is the negative evidence that in the whole history of mankind, among all cultures, among pagans and humanists and polytheists and among cultures that embraced homosexuality itself without stigma and even though marriage itself is universal there has NEVER been a culture that embraced homosexual marriage.
*the most striking things about Danny's favorite lesbian "study" that he trots out every month is how incredibly high the divorce rate among the study group is and how non-representative of even lesbians the sample is.....
You are only half right.
There is extensive scientific literature extolling the relative advantages and benefits that heterosexual married couples provide their children.
There is virtually no longterm scientific study of homosexual marriage*, and no study of large groups of homosexual parented children and no intergenerational study of the effects of homosexual marriage.
There is the negative evidence that in the whole history of mankind, among all cultures, among pagans and humanists and polytheists and among cultures that embraced homosexuality itself without stigma and even though marriage itself is universal there has NEVER been a culture that embraced homosexual marriage.
*the most striking things about Danny's favorite lesbian "study" that he trots out every month is how incredibly high the divorce rate among the study group is and how non-representative of even lesbians the sample is.....
60
56
Why is the nice thing about homosexuality
the fact that so few people are afflicted with it?
Because it is so destructive?
If the percentage of homosexuals creeps above 10% will the herd need to be thinned?
How do you have any idea what percentage of people will embrace homosexuality or homosexual "marriage" if it continues to be pushed and glamorized to children?
What percentage of the population in a highly educated literate nation do you suppose would embrace the idea of murdering millions of their fellow citizens just because they are Jews?
one percent? two?
It took less than a decade to indoctrinate a generation of loyal Nazis. If you get them young enough and have control of the popular culture and educational system you can brainwash a generation to accept ANYTHING.
Why is the nice thing about homosexuality
the fact that so few people are afflicted with it?
Because it is so destructive?
If the percentage of homosexuals creeps above 10% will the herd need to be thinned?
How do you have any idea what percentage of people will embrace homosexuality or homosexual "marriage" if it continues to be pushed and glamorized to children?
What percentage of the population in a highly educated literate nation do you suppose would embrace the idea of murdering millions of their fellow citizens just because they are Jews?
one percent? two?
It took less than a decade to indoctrinate a generation of loyal Nazis. If you get them young enough and have control of the popular culture and educational system you can brainwash a generation to accept ANYTHING.
61
56
You seem to naively unaware of the immense power of marketing....
What makes you think that if Danny and Lady Gaga and the rest of Queer,Inc are given unrestricted access to America's children that those children will not in fact buy the bullshit that homosexuality is JUST AS GOOD (no....BETTER!!) than their parent's stodgy old heterosexuality?
After all, the Slog congratulates itself daily that young folk growing up today embrace homosexuality and homosexual"marriage"....
remember, we are charting new territory here-
NO culture has EVER legitimized homosexual marriage;
relentlessly pushed the fallacy that it is JUST AS GOOD as heterosexuality.
And those who seek to mold the brains of children have never had the vast all-pervasive powerful marketing tools available today.
And even if the percentage remains below the level needed to destroy society, why would society subsidize and promote a lifestyle that would destroy society if it were embraced?
Should we also go back to promoting cigarette smoking?
Surely not EVERYONE will smoke......
You seem to naively unaware of the immense power of marketing....
What makes you think that if Danny and Lady Gaga and the rest of Queer,Inc are given unrestricted access to America's children that those children will not in fact buy the bullshit that homosexuality is JUST AS GOOD (no....BETTER!!) than their parent's stodgy old heterosexuality?
After all, the Slog congratulates itself daily that young folk growing up today embrace homosexuality and homosexual"marriage"....
remember, we are charting new territory here-
NO culture has EVER legitimized homosexual marriage;
relentlessly pushed the fallacy that it is JUST AS GOOD as heterosexuality.
And those who seek to mold the brains of children have never had the vast all-pervasive powerful marketing tools available today.
And even if the percentage remains below the level needed to destroy society, why would society subsidize and promote a lifestyle that would destroy society if it were embraced?
Should we also go back to promoting cigarette smoking?
Surely not EVERYONE will smoke......
63
62
did you see Danny's creepy mustache?
Adolph isn't the only charming illiterate bitter old queen to lead a society down the path of destruction.....
did you see Danny's creepy mustache?
Adolph isn't the only charming illiterate bitter old queen to lead a society down the path of destruction.....
64
@troll, but, why on earth would it be necessary for EVERYBODY to marry someone of the same sex if same-sex marriage were legal?
The fact that something is legal doesn't mean it's obligatory.
Gay marriage benefits society in the same way that any marriage without children benefits society.
But at least the tide is changing, more and more people are realizing that there's nothing wrong or dangerous in gay marriage. And indeed there isn't.
Let's do a bet? After gay marriage becomes legal, wait ten years. Then let's see if society has suffered immensely. If it has, I'll pay you $10. If it hasn't, you pay me $10. Deal? :-)
The fact that something is legal doesn't mean it's obligatory.
Gay marriage benefits society in the same way that any marriage without children benefits society.
But at least the tide is changing, more and more people are realizing that there's nothing wrong or dangerous in gay marriage. And indeed there isn't.
Let's do a bet? After gay marriage becomes legal, wait ten years. Then let's see if society has suffered immensely. If it has, I'll pay you $10. If it hasn't, you pay me $10. Deal? :-)
65
"dangerous".....
"Dangerous Things" for $50, Alex!
Q- "It would destroy mankind utterly within a century if everyone did it....."
A- What is Homosexual Marriage?
THAT'S RIGHT, BIFF !!!
You're Our WINNER!!!
"Dangerous Things" for $50, Alex!
Q- "It would destroy mankind utterly within a century if everyone did it....."
A- What is Homosexual Marriage?
THAT'S RIGHT, BIFF !!!
You're Our WINNER!!!
66
@58: Alleged, you never will learn, will you. There is evidence that two parents are better than one. However, we are not comparing single parents to pairs of parents; we are comparing same-sex parents to opposite sex parents. If we want to have anything meaningful, we need to compare those two directly.
That there is very little history of same-sex marriage is entirely meaningless. There is equally little history of stem cell therapy, but stem cell therapy has already saved many lives and will save countless more in the future. You're grasping at straws now.
Homosexuals are less likely to reproduce due to their orientation. The nice thing is that they are a relatively small minority, and so are not going to have any meaningful impact on birthrate. You claim that legalizing gay will somehow turn our kids gay, but such thinking is a symptom of the delusion that sexuality is chosen. You could tell me every day of my life that I should be shacking up with other dudes and it wouldn't change what I want to stick my dick in. Sexuality is for all intents and purposes innate; deal with it.
@65: "LOL I SAID IT IN A FUNNY WAY SO IT MUST BE TRUE LOL"
Look, can you just post it once instead of posting the whole thing and then posting each individual section separately? I read the whole thing through, so all you're doing is clogging up the thread, you newfag.
That there is very little history of same-sex marriage is entirely meaningless. There is equally little history of stem cell therapy, but stem cell therapy has already saved many lives and will save countless more in the future. You're grasping at straws now.
Homosexuals are less likely to reproduce due to their orientation. The nice thing is that they are a relatively small minority, and so are not going to have any meaningful impact on birthrate. You claim that legalizing gay will somehow turn our kids gay, but such thinking is a symptom of the delusion that sexuality is chosen. You could tell me every day of my life that I should be shacking up with other dudes and it wouldn't change what I want to stick my dick in. Sexuality is for all intents and purposes innate; deal with it.
@65: "LOL I SAID IT IN A FUNNY WAY SO IT MUST BE TRUE LOL"
Look, can you just post it once instead of posting the whole thing and then posting each individual section separately? I read the whole thing through, so all you're doing is clogging up the thread, you newfag.
67
There is evidence that two married heterosexual parents are better than one. Or two unmarried parents. Lots of evidence.
There is no comparable evidence regarding homosexual marriage.
but that shouldn't stop us- cause Science is only useful when it supports your bigotry, Right junior?
Otherwise you just cast it aside and piss into the hurricane and hope it won't fly back into your face...
There is little history of man-dog marriage.
But it should work just fine, right?
There is no comparable evidence regarding homosexual marriage.
but that shouldn't stop us- cause Science is only useful when it supports your bigotry, Right junior?
Otherwise you just cast it aside and piss into the hurricane and hope it won't fly back into your face...
There is little history of man-dog marriage.
But it should work just fine, right?
68
What evidence? The one I've seen doesn't support your claims.
Quotes? Links? Naahh... too much work.
Not that this will stop you from claiming the opposite. Who needs science, when one Already Knows?...
Again: there is nothing wrong or dangerous with gay marriage. It will pass, it will become legal, people will see that nothing changed (except fewer orphans will stay without two parents), and they'll move on. Nobody is questioning interracial marriage anymore (and it was supposed to harald the doom of the White Race -- remember?). Nobody will question gay marriage after it explodes without any sound or damage.
And... you'll owe me $10. Will you dare to pay? ;-)
Quotes? Links? Naahh... too much work.
Not that this will stop you from claiming the opposite. Who needs science, when one Already Knows?...
Again: there is nothing wrong or dangerous with gay marriage. It will pass, it will become legal, people will see that nothing changed (except fewer orphans will stay without two parents), and they'll move on. Nobody is questioning interracial marriage anymore (and it was supposed to harald the doom of the White Race -- remember?). Nobody will question gay marriage after it explodes without any sound or damage.
And... you'll owe me $10. Will you dare to pay? ;-)
69
@67: There is very very little evidence about the parenting abilities of same-sex couples. That doesn't mean that gays are bad parents; it means we can't draw any conclusions either way. For the time being, it is statistically responsible to operate under the simplest case, in which sexuality has no effect on a couple's child-rearing abilities. Unless we have evidence otherwise, it is scientifically unsound to operate under any other assumption.
There is little history of man-dog marriage, just like there is little history of same-sex marriage. However, there is a huge amount of evidence demonstrating substantial differences between dogs and humans. What evidence we do have with regard to homosexuals indicates that they are pretty much the same as heterosexuals apart from where they want to stick what.
I think it's really rich that you claim to be sticking up for science, but you don't know anything about the scientific process or statistical methodology or just plain intellectual honesty. Is it too late for me to get in on that bet you have with ankylosaur?
There is little history of man-dog marriage, just like there is little history of same-sex marriage. However, there is a huge amount of evidence demonstrating substantial differences between dogs and humans. What evidence we do have with regard to homosexuals indicates that they are pretty much the same as heterosexuals apart from where they want to stick what.
I think it's really rich that you claim to be sticking up for science, but you don't know anything about the scientific process or statistical methodology or just plain intellectual honesty. Is it too late for me to get in on that bet you have with ankylosaur?
70
69
yes, there is very little said of man-dog marriage, but mostly because dogs are quite modest.
actually canines make very loving parents.
Mowgli turned out fine.
not as good parents as lesbians, for sure;
but no doubt far better than a household with two guys as caregivers.
We see a bright future for man-dog parenting.
yes, there is very little said of man-dog marriage, but mostly because dogs are quite modest.
actually canines make very loving parents.
Mowgli turned out fine.
not as good parents as lesbians, for sure;
but no doubt far better than a household with two guys as caregivers.
We see a bright future for man-dog parenting.
71
@70: Fine, I bet you $10,000 that gay marriage, if enacted, will not destroy civilization as we know it. Put your money where your mouth is.
This is the endless cycle of things. When I put up some facts that you can't argue with, you try to make a joke and change the subject so that it doesn't seem like you fucked up your argument so badly. The next time this issue comes up, you'll pretend this discussion never happened and I'll have to educate you again.
This is the endless cycle of things. When I put up some facts that you can't argue with, you try to make a joke and change the subject so that it doesn't seem like you fucked up your argument so badly. The next time this issue comes up, you'll pretend this discussion never happened and I'll have to educate you again.
72
Herr Scleppangeln,
The reality is that heterosexual marriage will continue as always. Same sex marriage will simply add to the existing pool of married couples. End of argument.
IF we were all unable to procreate, then it would be a problem. However, since no heterosexual relationships were harmed by same sex relationships (at least mine wasn't, or my brother's, or my sister's, or my friends'...) there should be no problem. More babies are being made every day, just like the day before, and the day before that, etc.
The world goes on, your fears unrealized.
Peace.
The reality is that heterosexual marriage will continue as always. Same sex marriage will simply add to the existing pool of married couples. End of argument.
IF we were all unable to procreate, then it would be a problem. However, since no heterosexual relationships were harmed by same sex relationships (at least mine wasn't, or my brother's, or my sister's, or my friends'...) there should be no problem. More babies are being made every day, just like the day before, and the day before that, etc.
The world goes on, your fears unrealized.
Peace.
73
72
add?
the annual number of marriages in Mass has dropped by 9% in the few years since homosexual "marriage" was legalized.
the pool must have a leak in it......
add?
the annual number of marriages in Mass has dropped by 9% in the few years since homosexual "marriage" was legalized.
the pool must have a leak in it......
74
71
Facts?!
my internet must be balky- we read and reread your post @69 but only see assumptions and admissions of ignorance.
We do see, however, that you continue to run away from the question:
What would a society in which EVERYONE did a homosexual "marriage" look like?
And you assert that the good thing about homosexuality is that so few people do it.
Why, again, do we want to promote a behavior like that to our children?
sorry for the jokes. as we have said, you are always good for a laugh.....
Facts?!
my internet must be balky- we read and reread your post @69 but only see assumptions and admissions of ignorance.
We do see, however, that you continue to run away from the question:
What would a society in which EVERYONE did a homosexual "marriage" look like?
And you assert that the good thing about homosexuality is that so few people do it.
Why, again, do we want to promote a behavior like that to our children?
sorry for the jokes. as we have said, you are always good for a laugh.....
75
@73: You just showed how little you know, right here on this week's episode of "Numbnuts Who Think Correlation Implies Causation". The marriage rate in Massachusetts has been mostly declining since 1990; is gay marriage suddenly responsible for the continued trend?
Of course, it becomes clear how badly you punked yourself when we look at other states with gay marriage. Marriage rates in Connecticut and Vermont have actually INCREASED (quite dramatically in the case of the latter) since gay marriage was legalized (source). How are you going to explain that?
@74: If we don't have sufficient information to draw a formal conclusion, I'm not going to claim that we do. Call that an admission of ignorance if you like, but what I'm doing is called honesty, a concept you may be unfamiliar with.
There is no reason to speculate on the possibility of a society in which everyone was in a same-sex marriage, because there is a negligible probability of such a situation arising and because any projection of such would be unconscionably extrapolated from what we do have data about.
I never said that it is good that homosexuality is relatively rare; I said that it is nice, as in convenient. Because homosexuals are such a small minority, we can effectively ignore any effect they might have on birthrate.
It's telling that every counterargument you have made so far hinges on a deliberate misreading of my statements. Please make a point beyond "well, I don't believe you".
Of course, it becomes clear how badly you punked yourself when we look at other states with gay marriage. Marriage rates in Connecticut and Vermont have actually INCREASED (quite dramatically in the case of the latter) since gay marriage was legalized (source). How are you going to explain that?
@74: If we don't have sufficient information to draw a formal conclusion, I'm not going to claim that we do. Call that an admission of ignorance if you like, but what I'm doing is called honesty, a concept you may be unfamiliar with.
There is no reason to speculate on the possibility of a society in which everyone was in a same-sex marriage, because there is a negligible probability of such a situation arising and because any projection of such would be unconscionably extrapolated from what we do have data about.
I never said that it is good that homosexuality is relatively rare; I said that it is nice, as in convenient. Because homosexuals are such a small minority, we can effectively ignore any effect they might have on birthrate.
It's telling that every counterargument you have made so far hinges on a deliberate misreading of my statements. Please make a point beyond "well, I don't believe you".
76
Correction @72,
Should read "Schleppangel" ( a fisherman using a dragging technique, or trolling),
Should read "Schleppangel" ( a fisherman using a dragging technique, or trolling),
77
@73,
Perhaps part of the reason MA has fewer (new) marriages is because we also have fewer divorces. Again, what we already have isn't affected by same sex marriages.
Perhaps part of the reason MA has fewer (new) marriages is because we also have fewer divorces. Again, what we already have isn't affected by same sex marriages.
78
77
perhaps the reason MA has fewer divorces is because it has dramatically fewer marriages.
chicken/egg
you can't get a divorce if you never married.......
perhaps the reason MA has fewer divorces is because it has dramatically fewer marriages.
chicken/egg
you can't get a divorce if you never married.......
79
75
oh junior, we're so sorry to have to break it to you....
Vermont started homosexual Civil Union in 2000.
The marriage rate was 10.0
In 2010 it was 9.3; down 7% even though the population had gone up 3%.
Vermont legalized homosexual "marriage" at the end of 2009 and 2010 is the last year reported. one data point doesn't make a trend.....
Connecticut started homosexual Civil Union in 2005.
The marriage rate was 5.8
In 2010 it was 5.6; down 10% even though the population had gone up 5%.
Connecticut legalized homosexual "marriage" at the end of 2008. The marriage rate dropped from 5.9 in the first year of homosexual "marriage" to 5.6 one year later.
marriage in America is terminally ill, acceptance of homosexual "marriage" is part of plunging respect for the institution.
oh junior, we're so sorry to have to break it to you....
Vermont started homosexual Civil Union in 2000.
The marriage rate was 10.0
In 2010 it was 9.3; down 7% even though the population had gone up 3%.
Vermont legalized homosexual "marriage" at the end of 2009 and 2010 is the last year reported. one data point doesn't make a trend.....
Connecticut started homosexual Civil Union in 2005.
The marriage rate was 5.8
In 2010 it was 5.6; down 10% even though the population had gone up 5%.
Connecticut legalized homosexual "marriage" at the end of 2008. The marriage rate dropped from 5.9 in the first year of homosexual "marriage" to 5.6 one year later.
marriage in America is terminally ill, acceptance of homosexual "marriage" is part of plunging respect for the institution.
80
The "what if EVERYBODY did what I do" test is a very reliable way to measure the social responsibility of behaviors.
If I steal a pen from work that is wrong. If EVERYBODY stole a pen from work the company would some how manage to survive, probably.
If I steal a million dollars from the company that is wrong. If EVERYBODY steals a million bucks the company will go bust.
stealing a million bucks is worse than stealing a pen.
If I drive 5 miles an hour over the speed limit it is wrong. If EVERYBODY drove 5 miles over the speed limit society would somehow muddle through (actually, the highways would probably be much safer than they actually now are...)
If I drive drunk and kill a family of five it is wrong. If EVERYBODY drove drunk and killed a family of five, well, it would get real bloody.
driving drunk is worse than speeding 5mph.
If i have a heterosexual marriage...blahblah...if EVERYBODY....society would muddle through.
If EVERYBODY got a homosexual "marriage", as we have seen, mankind would go extinct in a century.
obviously homosexual "marriage" is a lot worse than heterosexual marriage.
Obviously homosexual "marriage" is not JUST AS GOOD as heterosexual marriage.
Because if you substituted homosexual marriage for heterosexual marriage the race ends.
Your comment that it is "nice" that there are not too many homosexuals is telling, and spot on.
Society can tolerate a small percentage of huge fuckups and not collapse.
Some people do steal a million bucks.
Some people do kill families of five.
Luckily the percentage of such major fuckups is small.
But do we want to promote grand larceny and drunk driving?
Do we want to subsidize grand larceny and drunk driving?
Do we teach our kids that grand larceny and drunk driving are JUST AS GOOD as stealing a pen or speeding 5mph?
No.
More...
If I steal a pen from work that is wrong. If EVERYBODY stole a pen from work the company would some how manage to survive, probably.
If I steal a million dollars from the company that is wrong. If EVERYBODY steals a million bucks the company will go bust.
stealing a million bucks is worse than stealing a pen.
If I drive 5 miles an hour over the speed limit it is wrong. If EVERYBODY drove 5 miles over the speed limit society would somehow muddle through (actually, the highways would probably be much safer than they actually now are...)
If I drive drunk and kill a family of five it is wrong. If EVERYBODY drove drunk and killed a family of five, well, it would get real bloody.
driving drunk is worse than speeding 5mph.
If i have a heterosexual marriage...blahblah...if EVERYBODY....society would muddle through.
If EVERYBODY got a homosexual "marriage", as we have seen, mankind would go extinct in a century.
obviously homosexual "marriage" is a lot worse than heterosexual marriage.
Obviously homosexual "marriage" is not JUST AS GOOD as heterosexual marriage.
Because if you substituted homosexual marriage for heterosexual marriage the race ends.
Your comment that it is "nice" that there are not too many homosexuals is telling, and spot on.
Society can tolerate a small percentage of huge fuckups and not collapse.
Some people do steal a million bucks.
Some people do kill families of five.
Luckily the percentage of such major fuckups is small.
But do we want to promote grand larceny and drunk driving?
Do we want to subsidize grand larceny and drunk driving?
Do we teach our kids that grand larceny and drunk driving are JUST AS GOOD as stealing a pen or speeding 5mph?
No.
81
75
Obviously homosexual "marriage" is not JUST AS GOOD as heterosexual marriage.
Because if you substituted homosexual marriage for heterosexual marriage the human race ends.
Your comment that it is "nice" that there are not too many homosexuals is telling, and spot on.
Society can tolerate a small percentage of huge fuckups and not collapse.
Some people do steal a million bucks.
Some people do kill families of five.
Luckily the percentage of such major fuckups is small.
But do we want to promote grand larceny and drunk driving?
Do we want to subsidize grand larceny and drunk driving?
Do we teach our kids that grand larceny and drunk driving are JUST AS GOOD as stealing a pen or speeding 5mph?
No.
Obviously homosexual "marriage" is not JUST AS GOOD as heterosexual marriage.
Because if you substituted homosexual marriage for heterosexual marriage the human race ends.
Your comment that it is "nice" that there are not too many homosexuals is telling, and spot on.
Society can tolerate a small percentage of huge fuckups and not collapse.
Some people do steal a million bucks.
Some people do kill families of five.
Luckily the percentage of such major fuckups is small.
But do we want to promote grand larceny and drunk driving?
Do we want to subsidize grand larceny and drunk driving?
Do we teach our kids that grand larceny and drunk driving are JUST AS GOOD as stealing a pen or speeding 5mph?
No.
82
And if in our society everybody were a plumber? Who'd ever instal the cable?
Ergo, plumbers are evil and should be outlawed.
Brilliant argument, isn't it.
Ergo, plumbers are evil and should be outlawed.
Brilliant argument, isn't it.
83
@Troll, not that you're likely to listen to reason or anything, but lower divorce rates generally result in lower marriage rates because it means lower rates of remarriage. People who get divorced often get married again (and again, since second marriages are likelier to end in divorce than first marriages). So, when people are more likely to stay in their first marriage, you get a lower marriage rate overall.
Less divorce = less marriage.
What you need to measure isn't the number of marriages but the number of married couples. Now THAT number might be useful.
Less divorce = less marriage.
What you need to measure isn't the number of marriages but the number of married couples. Now THAT number might be useful.
84
83
good point.
In the late 50's over 70% of American adults were married.
Currently it is 50%.
That is a 30% drop in marriages in a couple of generations.
That statistic actually carries a ton of useful information in it....
The thing that correlates most with staying out of poverty
is not educational attainment
or parents socioeconomic status.
It is getting and staying married.
And children raised in homes with married parents
do much better than children raised in other circumstances.
And seldom show up in Danny's gloating "Every Child Deserves...."
A great deal of this society's ever increasing economic misery and social chaos is summed up in the plunging rate of marriage in America.
good point.
In the late 50's over 70% of American adults were married.
Currently it is 50%.
That is a 30% drop in marriages in a couple of generations.
That statistic actually carries a ton of useful information in it....
The thing that correlates most with staying out of poverty
is not educational attainment
or parents socioeconomic status.
It is getting and staying married.
And children raised in homes with married parents
do much better than children raised in other circumstances.
And seldom show up in Danny's gloating "Every Child Deserves...."
A great deal of this society's ever increasing economic misery and social chaos is summed up in the plunging rate of marriage in America.
85
@11: Brilliant! Of course, the reporters^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hstenographers will never ask that question.
86
@Venomlash - YOU ROCK!!! Loved your comments and scientific arguments against the troll. I think you should change your name to Trollslayer, or something like that.
@troll, WOW, you must be incredibly insecure in your sexuality if you ask how many people will become homosexual once we legalize same-sex marriage. Or, as you say, "You seem to [sic] naively unaware of the immense power of marketing...."
I'm an equality-loving straight woman. I support all people's right to marry the people they want to marry. I'm even secure enough in my own sexuality that I can say there are a few women in my life I have been attracted to, although it is rare that I am sexually attracted to a woman and when I am, I'll admit it's usually a pretty masculine-looking woman.
Given the above, I can honestly say, you could sit me down and bombard me with homosexual marketing (whatever that means) all day and night, and I will never want to have sex with another woman. Why?
Because just like Dan, I find the thought of eating pussy to be disgusting (although I'm grateful my boyfriend loves it), but the mere idea of sucking cock gets me hot. Because I was born straight (that's right I, too, was born this way).
If you are so certain that so many people could be "swayed" to be gay, you must have a very malleable sexuality, which is fine as long as you can accept it and learn to love yourself. But considering your troll rants, I'll bet you are at least a self-hating bisexual and at most a classic homophobic closet case.
In addition, @79, your math is VERY fuzzy indeed. Given your figures are correct (of which I am not certain), Vermont saw only a .7% decrease (10.0 - 9.3 = 0.7, NOT 7). For Connecticut you state it was 5.8% before same-sex unions but was 5.6% in 2010, which is only a .2% decrease, not a 10% decrease, as you stated.
While I don't have the data to be 100% certain, I would guess that a decrease of .7% (that's a decrease of .007, which means that there are 7 fewer marriages per 1000 people than the previous measure), is not a statistically significant difference, and I would bet money that a .2% decrease in Connecticut is not significant.
The point is not only is your math horrible, but you don't understand what those numbers mean, and as such you are not qualified to properly evaluate them in terms of what social or other factors might be having an impact on marriage rates.
Your arguments are ridiculous, spurious, and in no way advance any intelligent conversation on the matter.
More...
@troll, WOW, you must be incredibly insecure in your sexuality if you ask how many people will become homosexual once we legalize same-sex marriage. Or, as you say, "You seem to [sic] naively unaware of the immense power of marketing...."
I'm an equality-loving straight woman. I support all people's right to marry the people they want to marry. I'm even secure enough in my own sexuality that I can say there are a few women in my life I have been attracted to, although it is rare that I am sexually attracted to a woman and when I am, I'll admit it's usually a pretty masculine-looking woman.
Given the above, I can honestly say, you could sit me down and bombard me with homosexual marketing (whatever that means) all day and night, and I will never want to have sex with another woman. Why?
Because just like Dan, I find the thought of eating pussy to be disgusting (although I'm grateful my boyfriend loves it), but the mere idea of sucking cock gets me hot. Because I was born straight (that's right I, too, was born this way).
If you are so certain that so many people could be "swayed" to be gay, you must have a very malleable sexuality, which is fine as long as you can accept it and learn to love yourself. But considering your troll rants, I'll bet you are at least a self-hating bisexual and at most a classic homophobic closet case.
In addition, @79, your math is VERY fuzzy indeed. Given your figures are correct (of which I am not certain), Vermont saw only a .7% decrease (10.0 - 9.3 = 0.7, NOT 7). For Connecticut you state it was 5.8% before same-sex unions but was 5.6% in 2010, which is only a .2% decrease, not a 10% decrease, as you stated.
While I don't have the data to be 100% certain, I would guess that a decrease of .7% (that's a decrease of .007, which means that there are 7 fewer marriages per 1000 people than the previous measure), is not a statistically significant difference, and I would bet money that a .2% decrease in Connecticut is not significant.
The point is not only is your math horrible, but you don't understand what those numbers mean, and as such you are not qualified to properly evaluate them in terms of what social or other factors might be having an impact on marriage rates.
Your arguments are ridiculous, spurious, and in no way advance any intelligent conversation on the matter.
87
@79: When a single datum fits with your views, it's proof positive. When it doesn't, suddenly it's a single insignificant point. You have no respect for evidence.
Also, the rates are per 1000 people, and so any increases in population are accounted for. Your emphasis on population changes reveals that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
@80: The point you try to make here is bullshit on several levels. Let me explain.
One, just because something would be bad if EVERYONE did it does not mean that it is bad for SOME PEOPLE to do it. If every person on Earth became an astronaut, we would rapidly starve to death. However, it is highly beneficial to science and to society for some people to be astronauts. Therefore, macroscale effects are not necessarily indicative of microscale effects. Q.E.D.
Two, your claim that society would collapse if everyone were to become part of a same-sex marriage is entirely unsupported by the evidence. The crux of your argument seems to be that people would stop having children if they were in same-sex marriages. However, humans are just like most other animals in that social mating systems are not necessarily indicative of reproductive mating systems; how many children's paternity is questionable even under standard conditions? Just because people are in same-sex marriages does not mean that they will not be having heterosexual relationships. Many people today are in same-sex unions but still have heterosexual sex, videlicet bisexuals.
Three, legalizing same-sex marriage WILL NOT cause heterosexuals to engage in it on any noticeable scale. You apparently believe that societal acceptance of homosexuality will cause people to become homosexual. While the determinant(s) of sexual orientation are as yet unclear, the vast majority of evidence indicates that sexual orientation is fixed early in development and is effectively immutable. Your fears of everybody being gay are therefore entirely unfounded.
Additionally, you are once again taking a quote out of context. It is "nice" (that is, convenient) that homosexuality is uncommon because its potential effect on birthrate is so small that it can be ignored in any analysis. You are no longer allowed to ignore the context of this quote.
@84: Just because fewer people are getting married doesn't mean that kids are more likely to be born out of wedlock. Let's do a simple thought experiment.
Suppose in a population, everyone gets married at age 20 and starts having kids at age 30. What if people start getting married at age 25 instead? A smaller percentage of the population will be married, but this change has not caused any children to be born out of wedlock. There is not necessarily any direct correspondence between proportions of married people and percentage of children born out of wedlock.
Now, because you love the facts so much, it turns out that out-of-wedlock birth rates have been rising (except during the Clinton administration, oddly). (Here is my source.) So here's my question to you:
If children do better growing up when raised by parents who are married, why would it be bad to allow people to get married and adopt children who would otherwise remain in the foster care system? How would that harm the children? (Support your answer with facts, please, if you have any conception of what a fact is.)
More...
Also, the rates are per 1000 people, and so any increases in population are accounted for. Your emphasis on population changes reveals that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
@80: The point you try to make here is bullshit on several levels. Let me explain.
One, just because something would be bad if EVERYONE did it does not mean that it is bad for SOME PEOPLE to do it. If every person on Earth became an astronaut, we would rapidly starve to death. However, it is highly beneficial to science and to society for some people to be astronauts. Therefore, macroscale effects are not necessarily indicative of microscale effects. Q.E.D.
Two, your claim that society would collapse if everyone were to become part of a same-sex marriage is entirely unsupported by the evidence. The crux of your argument seems to be that people would stop having children if they were in same-sex marriages. However, humans are just like most other animals in that social mating systems are not necessarily indicative of reproductive mating systems; how many children's paternity is questionable even under standard conditions? Just because people are in same-sex marriages does not mean that they will not be having heterosexual relationships. Many people today are in same-sex unions but still have heterosexual sex, videlicet bisexuals.
Three, legalizing same-sex marriage WILL NOT cause heterosexuals to engage in it on any noticeable scale. You apparently believe that societal acceptance of homosexuality will cause people to become homosexual. While the determinant(s) of sexual orientation are as yet unclear, the vast majority of evidence indicates that sexual orientation is fixed early in development and is effectively immutable. Your fears of everybody being gay are therefore entirely unfounded.
Additionally, you are once again taking a quote out of context. It is "nice" (that is, convenient) that homosexuality is uncommon because its potential effect on birthrate is so small that it can be ignored in any analysis. You are no longer allowed to ignore the context of this quote.
@84: Just because fewer people are getting married doesn't mean that kids are more likely to be born out of wedlock. Let's do a simple thought experiment.
Suppose in a population, everyone gets married at age 20 and starts having kids at age 30. What if people start getting married at age 25 instead? A smaller percentage of the population will be married, but this change has not caused any children to be born out of wedlock. There is not necessarily any direct correspondence between proportions of married people and percentage of children born out of wedlock.
Now, because you love the facts so much, it turns out that out-of-wedlock birth rates have been rising (except during the Clinton administration, oddly). (Here is my source.) So here's my question to you:
If children do better growing up when raised by parents who are married, why would it be bad to allow people to get married and adopt children who would otherwise remain in the foster care system? How would that harm the children? (Support your answer with facts, please, if you have any conception of what a fact is.)
88
86
Thank you for your comments.
Thank you especially for your concern for our sexuality, and your diagnosis.
We are touched.
And we have never heard the "you must be a self loathing closet case if you oppose homosexual marriage" argument before.
Very original.
And thank you for sharing your own intimate sexual appetites and dislikes.
They have been duly noted.
Do you support marriage equality for polygamists?
We haven't seen you advocating that position on Slog.
You misread our position.
The point is not how many people may decide to experiment with or embrace a homosexual lifestyle, although it is unknowable how many will if homosexuality is aggressively promoted to children.
The point is that there is no benefit to society to promote or subsidize homosexual pairings as "marriage".
.7 is 7% of 10
Vermont saw a 7% decrease. seven percent.
It also saw a .7 decrease. zero point seven.
A decrease of .007 is significant if your starting point is .070
You are correct that there is an error in the Connecticut figure.
I originally read the drop on the chart to 5.2, which would have been a .6 decrease, and .6 is 10% of 5.8. I caught the mistake and changed the figure but did not redo the math.
If you find our math VERY fuzzy what is your analysis of the statement that :"Marriage rates in Connecticut and Vermont have actually INCREASED (quite dramatically in the case of the latter)"?
Do you also find a 10% decrease to be a DRAMATIC INCREASE?
87
yes. population change is accounted for in the rates of marriage.
but it really sounds dramatic the way we stated it.
we like it just fine the way it is....
you must really be desperate.
the old "homosexuals will raise the orphans and save society" canard.
What if every single last homosexual got hitched and adopted kids.
That would add 2 percentage points, maybe, to the number of married adults in the country.
If EVERY SINGLE homosexual got married and adopted kids.
There are 20% fewer adults in marriages now than in the 50s.
If that was addressed and just 10% of the unmarried
got married the number of married adults would go up by, gosh....2%!
and we know that 10% is just a fuzzy math rounding error....
Are EVERY SINGLE homosexual in America going to settle down and marry and adopt a houseful of kids?
Really?
We'll put our money on salvaging real marriages, thank you.
.
the crux of your 'argument' seems to be that even if everyone was in a homosexual marriage there would be lots of heterosexual cheating and lots of babies born anyway?
my my.
you seem to lack faith in the overpowering innateness of homosexuality.
Danny will be displeased......
.
we are aware of the context, Junior, in fact, we emphasize it-
"It is "nice" that homosexuality is uncommon because its potential effect on birthrate is so small (that is, DISASTROUS ) that it can be ignored in any analysis."
what measures do you propose we employ to make sure the percentage of homosexuals does not get out of hand?
Pharaoh, when presented with a similar dilemma, decreed that the male children be killed.
would that work for you?
do you want to break the news to Danny and Terri and The Kid?
More...
Thank you for your comments.
Thank you especially for your concern for our sexuality, and your diagnosis.
We are touched.
And we have never heard the "you must be a self loathing closet case if you oppose homosexual marriage" argument before.
Very original.
And thank you for sharing your own intimate sexual appetites and dislikes.
They have been duly noted.
Do you support marriage equality for polygamists?
We haven't seen you advocating that position on Slog.
You misread our position.
The point is not how many people may decide to experiment with or embrace a homosexual lifestyle, although it is unknowable how many will if homosexuality is aggressively promoted to children.
The point is that there is no benefit to society to promote or subsidize homosexual pairings as "marriage".
.7 is 7% of 10
Vermont saw a 7% decrease. seven percent.
It also saw a .7 decrease. zero point seven.
A decrease of .007 is significant if your starting point is .070
You are correct that there is an error in the Connecticut figure.
I originally read the drop on the chart to 5.2, which would have been a .6 decrease, and .6 is 10% of 5.8. I caught the mistake and changed the figure but did not redo the math.
If you find our math VERY fuzzy what is your analysis of the statement that :"Marriage rates in Connecticut and Vermont have actually INCREASED (quite dramatically in the case of the latter)"?
Do you also find a 10% decrease to be a DRAMATIC INCREASE?
87
yes. population change is accounted for in the rates of marriage.
but it really sounds dramatic the way we stated it.
we like it just fine the way it is....
you must really be desperate.
the old "homosexuals will raise the orphans and save society" canard.
What if every single last homosexual got hitched and adopted kids.
That would add 2 percentage points, maybe, to the number of married adults in the country.
If EVERY SINGLE homosexual got married and adopted kids.
There are 20% fewer adults in marriages now than in the 50s.
If that was addressed and just 10% of the unmarried
got married the number of married adults would go up by, gosh....2%!
and we know that 10% is just a fuzzy math rounding error....
Are EVERY SINGLE homosexual in America going to settle down and marry and adopt a houseful of kids?
Really?
We'll put our money on salvaging real marriages, thank you.
.
the crux of your 'argument' seems to be that even if everyone was in a homosexual marriage there would be lots of heterosexual cheating and lots of babies born anyway?
my my.
you seem to lack faith in the overpowering innateness of homosexuality.
Danny will be displeased......
.
we are aware of the context, Junior, in fact, we emphasize it-
"It is "nice" that homosexuality is uncommon because its potential effect on birthrate is so small (that is, DISASTROUS ) that it can be ignored in any analysis."
what measures do you propose we employ to make sure the percentage of homosexuals does not get out of hand?
Pharaoh, when presented with a similar dilemma, decreed that the male children be killed.
would that work for you?
do you want to break the news to Danny and Terri and The Kid?
89
86
Thank you for your comments.
Thank you especially for your concern for our sexuality, and your diagnosis.
We are touched.
And we have never heard the "you must be a self loathing closet case if you oppose homosexual marriage" argument before.
Very original.
And thank you for sharing your own intimate sexual appetites and dislikes.
They have been duly noted.
Do you support marriage equality for polygamists?
We haven't seen you advocating that position on Slog.
You misread our position.
The point is not how many people may decide to experiment with or embrace a homosexual lifestyle, although it is unknowable how many will if homosexuality is aggressively promoted to children.
The point is that there is no benefit to society to promote or subsidize homosexual pairings as "marriage".
.7 is 7% of 10
Vermont saw a 7% decrease. seven percent.
It also saw a .7 decrease. zero point seven.
A decrease of .007 is significant if your starting point is .070
You are correct that there is an error in the Connecticut figure.
I originally read the drop on the chart to 5.2, which would have been a .6 decrease, and .6 is 10% of 5.8. I caught the mistake and changed the figure but did not redo the math.
If you find our math VERY fuzzy what is your analysis of the statement that :"Marriage rates in Connecticut and Vermont have actually INCREASED (quite dramatically in the case of the latter)"?
Do you also find a 10% decrease to be a DRAMATIC INCREASE?
87
yes. population change is accounted for in the rates of marriage.
but it really sounds dramatic the way we stated it.
we like it just fine the way it is....
you must really be desperate.
the old "homosexuals will raise the orphans and save society" canard.
What if every single last homosexual got hitched and adopted kids.
That would add 2 percentage points, maybe, to the number of married adults in the country.
If EVERY SINGLE homosexual got married and adopted kids.
There are 20% fewer adults in marriages now than in the 50s.
If that was addressed and just 10% of the unmarried
got married the number of married adults would go up by, gosh....2%!
and we know that 10% is just a fuzzy math rounding error....
Are EVERY SINGLE homosexual in America going to settle down and marry and adopt a houseful of kids?
Really?
We'll put our money on salvaging real marriages, thank you.
.
the crux of your 'argument' seems to be that even if everyone was in a homosexual marriage there would be lots of heterosexual cheating and lots of babies born anyway?
my my.
you seem to lack faith in the overpowering innateness of homosexuality.
Danny will be displeased......
.
we are aware of the context, Junior, in fact, we emphasize it-
"It is "nice" that homosexuality is uncommon because its potential effect on birthrate is so small (that is, DISASTROUS ) that it can be ignored in any analysis."
what measures do you propose we employ to make sure the percentage of homosexuals does not get out of hand?
Pharaoh, when presented with a similar dilemma, decreed that the male children be killed.
would that work for you?
do you want to break the news to Danny and Terri and The Kid?
More...
Thank you for your comments.
Thank you especially for your concern for our sexuality, and your diagnosis.
We are touched.
And we have never heard the "you must be a self loathing closet case if you oppose homosexual marriage" argument before.
Very original.
And thank you for sharing your own intimate sexual appetites and dislikes.
They have been duly noted.
Do you support marriage equality for polygamists?
We haven't seen you advocating that position on Slog.
You misread our position.
The point is not how many people may decide to experiment with or embrace a homosexual lifestyle, although it is unknowable how many will if homosexuality is aggressively promoted to children.
The point is that there is no benefit to society to promote or subsidize homosexual pairings as "marriage".
.7 is 7% of 10
Vermont saw a 7% decrease. seven percent.
It also saw a .7 decrease. zero point seven.
A decrease of .007 is significant if your starting point is .070
You are correct that there is an error in the Connecticut figure.
I originally read the drop on the chart to 5.2, which would have been a .6 decrease, and .6 is 10% of 5.8. I caught the mistake and changed the figure but did not redo the math.
If you find our math VERY fuzzy what is your analysis of the statement that :"Marriage rates in Connecticut and Vermont have actually INCREASED (quite dramatically in the case of the latter)"?
Do you also find a 10% decrease to be a DRAMATIC INCREASE?
87
yes. population change is accounted for in the rates of marriage.
but it really sounds dramatic the way we stated it.
we like it just fine the way it is....
you must really be desperate.
the old "homosexuals will raise the orphans and save society" canard.
What if every single last homosexual got hitched and adopted kids.
That would add 2 percentage points, maybe, to the number of married adults in the country.
If EVERY SINGLE homosexual got married and adopted kids.
There are 20% fewer adults in marriages now than in the 50s.
If that was addressed and just 10% of the unmarried
got married the number of married adults would go up by, gosh....2%!
and we know that 10% is just a fuzzy math rounding error....
Are EVERY SINGLE homosexual in America going to settle down and marry and adopt a houseful of kids?
Really?
We'll put our money on salvaging real marriages, thank you.
.
the crux of your 'argument' seems to be that even if everyone was in a homosexual marriage there would be lots of heterosexual cheating and lots of babies born anyway?
my my.
you seem to lack faith in the overpowering innateness of homosexuality.
Danny will be displeased......
.
we are aware of the context, Junior, in fact, we emphasize it-
"It is "nice" that homosexuality is uncommon because its potential effect on birthrate is so small (that is, DISASTROUS ) that it can be ignored in any analysis."
what measures do you propose we employ to make sure the percentage of homosexuals does not get out of hand?
Pharaoh, when presented with a similar dilemma, decreed that the male children be killed.
would that work for you?
do you want to break the news to Danny and Terri and The Kid?
90
87
yes. population change is accounted for in the rates of marriage.
but it really sounds dramatic the way we stated it.
we like it just fine the way it is....
you must really be desperate.
the old "homosexuals will raise the orphans and save society" canard.
What if every single last homosexual got hitched and adopted kids.
That would add 2 percentage points, maybe, to the number of married adults in the country.
If EVERY SINGLE homosexual got married and adopted kids.
There are 20% fewer adults in marriages now than in the 50s.
If that was addressed and just 10% of the unmarried
got married the number of married adults would go up by, gosh....2%!
and we know that 10% is just a fuzzy math rounding error....
Are EVERY SINGLE homosexual in America going to settle down and marry and adopt a houseful of kids?
Really?
We'll put our money on salvaging real marriages, thank you.
.
yes. population change is accounted for in the rates of marriage.
but it really sounds dramatic the way we stated it.
we like it just fine the way it is....
you must really be desperate.
the old "homosexuals will raise the orphans and save society" canard.
What if every single last homosexual got hitched and adopted kids.
That would add 2 percentage points, maybe, to the number of married adults in the country.
If EVERY SINGLE homosexual got married and adopted kids.
There are 20% fewer adults in marriages now than in the 50s.
If that was addressed and just 10% of the unmarried
got married the number of married adults would go up by, gosh....2%!
and we know that 10% is just a fuzzy math rounding error....
Are EVERY SINGLE homosexual in America going to settle down and marry and adopt a houseful of kids?
Really?
We'll put our money on salvaging real marriages, thank you.
.
91
87
the crux of your 'argument' seems to be that even if everyone was in a homosexual marriage there would be lots of heterosexual cheating and lots of babies born anyway?
my my.
you seem to lack faith in the overpowering innateness of homosexuality.
Danny will be displeased......
we are aware of the context, Junior, in fact, we emphasize it-
"It is "nice" that homosexuality is uncommon because its potential effect on birthrate is so small (that is, DISASTROUS ) that it can be ignored in any analysis."
what measures do you propose we employ to make sure the percentage of homosexuals does not get out of hand?
Pharaoh, when presented with a similar dilemma, decreed that the male children be killed.
would that work for you?
do you want to break the news to Danny and Terri and The Kid?
the crux of your 'argument' seems to be that even if everyone was in a homosexual marriage there would be lots of heterosexual cheating and lots of babies born anyway?
my my.
you seem to lack faith in the overpowering innateness of homosexuality.
Danny will be displeased......
we are aware of the context, Junior, in fact, we emphasize it-
"It is "nice" that homosexuality is uncommon because its potential effect on birthrate is so small (that is, DISASTROUS ) that it can be ignored in any analysis."
what measures do you propose we employ to make sure the percentage of homosexuals does not get out of hand?
Pharaoh, when presented with a similar dilemma, decreed that the male children be killed.
would that work for you?
do you want to break the news to Danny and Terri and The Kid?
92
79, Marriage rates have been declining for decades, gay marriage is relatively new. By your logic, allowing interracial marriage caused the lower marriage rates.
Unless you have data to back up your claims, (Can you find even one straight person who said that gay marriage kept them from marrying, or caused their divorce?) you've got nothing but your uneducated, uninformed, opinion. Will gay marriage prevent you from getting married, or will it ruin your marriage? Perhaps you are just worried about lesser people who aren't as morally upright as you? It's a good thing those weak people have you to defend them.
Unless you have data to back up your claims, (Can you find even one straight person who said that gay marriage kept them from marrying, or caused their divorce?) you've got nothing but your uneducated, uninformed, opinion. Will gay marriage prevent you from getting married, or will it ruin your marriage? Perhaps you are just worried about lesser people who aren't as morally upright as you? It's a good thing those weak people have you to defend them.
93
so Bob, what's the deal with you and interracial marriage?
did some black chick abandon you at the alter?
did your gal run off with a black guy?
what was your trauma?
did some black chick abandon you at the alter?
did your gal run off with a black guy?
what was your trauma?
95
@88: I'm not sure what you were trying to say here.
One, the "dramatic increase" I was talking about was relative to the legalization of gay marriage. Two, being in a same-sex marriage does not mean that someone is gay. Three, there is no need to "make sure the percentage of homosexuals does not get out of hand", as sexual orientation is effectively beyond our control; if anything, we should try to keep hormone-mimicking chemicals out of drinking water, as they could potentially cause children to be born intersex. (Remember, homosexuality is not a mental illness, but gender dysphoria is.) Four, the effect of homosexuality on birthrate is not necessarily negative, as gays can have children (via natural or artificial means). The "nice" thing is that we don't have to concern ourselves with finding out what the true effect is because it is so small due to homosexuality being uncommon.
You claim that the population of homosexuals will not have a meaningful impact on adoption since not so many people are gay. Well, news flash, Alleged: there are currently about 423,000 kids in foster care (source). If 5% of the population is homosexual, and only one quarter of them were to get married, there would be 1,900,000 gay couples out there. If only one out of every four adopted a child, the foster care system would be nearly emptied.
Nice of you to admit that you've lost the argument. Now that your claims that gay marriage will hurt society have been so thoroughly eviscerated, all you have left is claiming that gay marriage won't help society as much as I say it will.
I do have one question, though. Why do you post the same stuff (verbatim) several times in a row? It's not making anyone more likely to read your posts...
More...
One, the "dramatic increase" I was talking about was relative to the legalization of gay marriage. Two, being in a same-sex marriage does not mean that someone is gay. Three, there is no need to "make sure the percentage of homosexuals does not get out of hand", as sexual orientation is effectively beyond our control; if anything, we should try to keep hormone-mimicking chemicals out of drinking water, as they could potentially cause children to be born intersex. (Remember, homosexuality is not a mental illness, but gender dysphoria is.) Four, the effect of homosexuality on birthrate is not necessarily negative, as gays can have children (via natural or artificial means). The "nice" thing is that we don't have to concern ourselves with finding out what the true effect is because it is so small due to homosexuality being uncommon.
You claim that the population of homosexuals will not have a meaningful impact on adoption since not so many people are gay. Well, news flash, Alleged: there are currently about 423,000 kids in foster care (source). If 5% of the population is homosexual, and only one quarter of them were to get married, there would be 1,900,000 gay couples out there. If only one out of every four adopted a child, the foster care system would be nearly emptied.
Nice of you to admit that you've lost the argument. Now that your claims that gay marriage will hurt society have been so thoroughly eviscerated, all you have left is claiming that gay marriage won't help society as much as I say it will.
I do have one question, though. Why do you post the same stuff (verbatim) several times in a row? It's not making anyone more likely to read your posts...
97
TWO points:
First, "There is the negative evidence that in the whole history of mankind, among all cultures, among pagans and humanists and polytheists and among cultures that embraced homosexuality itself without stigma and even though marriage itself is universal there has NEVER been a culture that embraced homosexual marriage."
NOT TRUE, NOT TRUE, NOT TRUE, OH SO DEFINITELY -- NOT TRUE!!!!!
Read some Anthropology! When the early Spanish, French, English explorers and, then, missionaries first came to the North and South American Continents, they found THE INSTITUTION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN FULL SWING! Which, you can imagine, shocked them no end -- so of course, the very first thing the Colonialists and Missionaries did, was to suppress every trace of it they could, often brutally and violently. {Such as setting fierce dogs on the "sinners"...} There is an awful lot that can be said here: Look up the {orig. French-Canadian} word "berdache" in Wikipedia for more info. {The word was often used by early Anthropologists, but is a mis-nomer and not used so much now. Nevertheless, much early on-the-spot research uses that word.}
Native American tribes before the advent of Columbus, practiced same-sex marriage; often it was THEIR BEST AND MOST HONORED PEOPLE who contracted such marriages. {Some of the early missionaries didn't recognize that's what they were; as one man [or woman] paired in such a marriage to some extent assumed opposite-sex clothes and roles. Or the missionaries were so shocked that they just refused to recognize what was plainly in front of them.}
Such marriages often adopted and raised children; it was considered an exemplary sort of family environment by the tribal peoples. Only a minority of people contracted such a marriage; those who were considered to be "destined" [or "blessed"] that way, either from early childhood or from a "vision" or other sign they got in young adulthood.
We don't know for certain whether every Native American tribe, South and North, practiced same-sex marriage; too much has been lost, stamped out by priests, missionaries, and repressive governments that denied Native Peoples their rights. However, Anthropologists have identified HUNDREDS of tribes that DID practice same-sex marriage; and without the slightest endangering of their birthrates! presumably over centuries.
To recap: Same-sex marriage in these places was FULLY-APPROVED-OF and even HONORED as special and wonderful; yet relatively few people engaged in it, those who did having beforehand a feeling inside that it was "right" for them. This feeling was then without question, validated by their families, friends and members of the community.....
By the way, currently in the Pacific Northwest, two tribes, the Coquille of Oregon and the Suquamish of Washington, have decided thru popular opinion and their tribal councils, to recognize same-sex marriages on their tribal lands, for their tribal members. They somehow don't think this will endanger their diminished tribal numbers....
It was and is imported European diseases, and lack of medical care for them, that endanger tribal numbers......
Point Two:
For gosh sakes, being Gay DOES NOT MAKE ANYONE STERILE!!!
I know Gay men who are BIOLOGICAL Fathers; and Gay women who are BIOLOGICAL Mothers.
The impulse to Fatherhood, is entirely different from the impulse to "stick your dick" somewhere. The impulse to procreate, is entirely different from the desire to take a lover! The impulse to Motherhood, is a Biological Fact, at least in many women it is!
The desire to be Parents, is entirely separate from being Gay or being Straight. Not all Gays have it; not all Straights have it. But enough of both Gay and Straight, both Males and Females, have it..... Nature made us so. Evolution {in which Trolls probably don't believe either!} made us so. Or none of us would be here having this silly argument!
Repeat: Being Gay does not make one Sterile! Never has, never will!
If "everybody" decided to have a "Gay Marriage", that would mean simply that "everybody" would pair up with a same-sex partner, presumably for most of their lives.
It would NOT prevent, in any way, children being conceived or born or raised in such partnerships! DUHHHHHHHHHHH!
{How many children now are conceived OUTSIDE of the marriage relationships of the people who bring them up? like adultery, in vitro fertilization, previous marriages, adoption, etc.?}
I once knew, a long time ago, a Gay man and a Gay woman who married each other, simply for convenience, way back a long time ago when Gay people had to hide....
Well, I guess one night they were "fooling around" and the next thing you know -- a BEAUTIFUL Baby Girl! From a woman who never dreamed of being a Mother -- but the family was very happy! {This may seem to be somewhat contradictory to the point I'm making here: but it's sure a story to make one smile!}
With the over-population of this Planet, I would be glad if at least HALF the population decided not to procreate at all... and that EVERY child be a wanted, planned-for child, and that those that decided to give up being Parents {which is hard for most people, Gay OR Straight}, would invest their energies instead in providing Daycare, Healthcare, K-thru-College Education, proper nurturing in both food and material goods and Love, for the FEWER children this Planet could better support.....
More...
First, "There is the negative evidence that in the whole history of mankind, among all cultures, among pagans and humanists and polytheists and among cultures that embraced homosexuality itself without stigma and even though marriage itself is universal there has NEVER been a culture that embraced homosexual marriage."
NOT TRUE, NOT TRUE, NOT TRUE, OH SO DEFINITELY -- NOT TRUE!!!!!
Read some Anthropology! When the early Spanish, French, English explorers and, then, missionaries first came to the North and South American Continents, they found THE INSTITUTION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN FULL SWING! Which, you can imagine, shocked them no end -- so of course, the very first thing the Colonialists and Missionaries did, was to suppress every trace of it they could, often brutally and violently. {Such as setting fierce dogs on the "sinners"...} There is an awful lot that can be said here: Look up the {orig. French-Canadian} word "berdache" in Wikipedia for more info. {The word was often used by early Anthropologists, but is a mis-nomer and not used so much now. Nevertheless, much early on-the-spot research uses that word.}
Native American tribes before the advent of Columbus, practiced same-sex marriage; often it was THEIR BEST AND MOST HONORED PEOPLE who contracted such marriages. {Some of the early missionaries didn't recognize that's what they were; as one man [or woman] paired in such a marriage to some extent assumed opposite-sex clothes and roles. Or the missionaries were so shocked that they just refused to recognize what was plainly in front of them.}
Such marriages often adopted and raised children; it was considered an exemplary sort of family environment by the tribal peoples. Only a minority of people contracted such a marriage; those who were considered to be "destined" [or "blessed"] that way, either from early childhood or from a "vision" or other sign they got in young adulthood.
We don't know for certain whether every Native American tribe, South and North, practiced same-sex marriage; too much has been lost, stamped out by priests, missionaries, and repressive governments that denied Native Peoples their rights. However, Anthropologists have identified HUNDREDS of tribes that DID practice same-sex marriage; and without the slightest endangering of their birthrates! presumably over centuries.
To recap: Same-sex marriage in these places was FULLY-APPROVED-OF and even HONORED as special and wonderful; yet relatively few people engaged in it, those who did having beforehand a feeling inside that it was "right" for them. This feeling was then without question, validated by their families, friends and members of the community.....
By the way, currently in the Pacific Northwest, two tribes, the Coquille of Oregon and the Suquamish of Washington, have decided thru popular opinion and their tribal councils, to recognize same-sex marriages on their tribal lands, for their tribal members. They somehow don't think this will endanger their diminished tribal numbers....
It was and is imported European diseases, and lack of medical care for them, that endanger tribal numbers......
Point Two:
For gosh sakes, being Gay DOES NOT MAKE ANYONE STERILE!!!
I know Gay men who are BIOLOGICAL Fathers; and Gay women who are BIOLOGICAL Mothers.
The impulse to Fatherhood, is entirely different from the impulse to "stick your dick" somewhere. The impulse to procreate, is entirely different from the desire to take a lover! The impulse to Motherhood, is a Biological Fact, at least in many women it is!
The desire to be Parents, is entirely separate from being Gay or being Straight. Not all Gays have it; not all Straights have it. But enough of both Gay and Straight, both Males and Females, have it..... Nature made us so. Evolution {in which Trolls probably don't believe either!} made us so. Or none of us would be here having this silly argument!
Repeat: Being Gay does not make one Sterile! Never has, never will!
If "everybody" decided to have a "Gay Marriage", that would mean simply that "everybody" would pair up with a same-sex partner, presumably for most of their lives.
It would NOT prevent, in any way, children being conceived or born or raised in such partnerships! DUHHHHHHHHHHH!
{How many children now are conceived OUTSIDE of the marriage relationships of the people who bring them up? like adultery, in vitro fertilization, previous marriages, adoption, etc.?}
I once knew, a long time ago, a Gay man and a Gay woman who married each other, simply for convenience, way back a long time ago when Gay people had to hide....
Well, I guess one night they were "fooling around" and the next thing you know -- a BEAUTIFUL Baby Girl! From a woman who never dreamed of being a Mother -- but the family was very happy! {This may seem to be somewhat contradictory to the point I'm making here: but it's sure a story to make one smile!}
With the over-population of this Planet, I would be glad if at least HALF the population decided not to procreate at all... and that EVERY child be a wanted, planned-for child, and that those that decided to give up being Parents {which is hard for most people, Gay OR Straight}, would invest their energies instead in providing Daycare, Healthcare, K-thru-College Education, proper nurturing in both food and material goods and Love, for the FEWER children this Planet could better support.....
98
Point Two:
For gosh sakes, being Gay DOES NOT MAKE ANYONE STERILE!!!
I know Gay men who are BIOLOGICAL Fathers; and Gay women who are BIOLOGICAL Mothers.
The impulse to Fatherhood, is entirely different from the impulse to "stick your dick" somewhere. The impulse to procreate, is entirely different from the desire to take a lover! The impulse to Motherhood, is a Biological Fact, at least in many women it is!
The desire to be Parents, is entirely separate from being Gay or being Straight. Not all Gays have it; not all Straights have it. But enough of both Gay and Straight, both Males and Females, have it..... Nature made us so. Evolution {in which Trolls probably don't believe either!} made us so. Or none of us would be here having this silly argument!
Repeat: Being Gay does not make one Sterile! Never has, never will!
If "everybody" decided to have a "Gay Marriage", that would mean simply that "everybody" would pair up with a same-sex partner, presumably for most of their lives.
It would NOT prevent, in any way, children being conceived or born or raised in such partnerships! DUHHHHHHHHHHH!
{How many children now are conceived OUTSIDE of the marriage relationships of the people who bring them up? like adultery, in vitro fertilization, previous marriages, adoption, etc.?}
I once knew, a long time ago, a Gay man and a Gay woman who married each other, simply for convenience, way back a long time ago when Gay people had to hide....
Well, I guess one night they were "fooling around" and the next thing you know -- a BEAUTIFUL Baby Girl! From a woman who never dreamed of being a Mother -- but the family was very happy! {This may seem to be somewhat contradictory to the point I'm making here: but it's sure a story to make one smile!}
With the over-population of this Planet, I would be glad if at least HALF the population decided not to procreate at all... and that EVERY child be a wanted, planned-for child, and that those that decided to give up being Parents {which is hard for most people, Gay OR Straight}, would invest their energies instead in providing Daycare, Healthcare, K-thru-College Education, proper nurturing in both food and material goods and Love, for the FEWER children this Planet could better support.....
More...
For gosh sakes, being Gay DOES NOT MAKE ANYONE STERILE!!!
I know Gay men who are BIOLOGICAL Fathers; and Gay women who are BIOLOGICAL Mothers.
The impulse to Fatherhood, is entirely different from the impulse to "stick your dick" somewhere. The impulse to procreate, is entirely different from the desire to take a lover! The impulse to Motherhood, is a Biological Fact, at least in many women it is!
The desire to be Parents, is entirely separate from being Gay or being Straight. Not all Gays have it; not all Straights have it. But enough of both Gay and Straight, both Males and Females, have it..... Nature made us so. Evolution {in which Trolls probably don't believe either!} made us so. Or none of us would be here having this silly argument!
Repeat: Being Gay does not make one Sterile! Never has, never will!
If "everybody" decided to have a "Gay Marriage", that would mean simply that "everybody" would pair up with a same-sex partner, presumably for most of their lives.
It would NOT prevent, in any way, children being conceived or born or raised in such partnerships! DUHHHHHHHHHHH!
{How many children now are conceived OUTSIDE of the marriage relationships of the people who bring them up? like adultery, in vitro fertilization, previous marriages, adoption, etc.?}
I once knew, a long time ago, a Gay man and a Gay woman who married each other, simply for convenience, way back a long time ago when Gay people had to hide....
Well, I guess one night they were "fooling around" and the next thing you know -- a BEAUTIFUL Baby Girl! From a woman who never dreamed of being a Mother -- but the family was very happy! {This may seem to be somewhat contradictory to the point I'm making here: but it's sure a story to make one smile!}
With the over-population of this Planet, I would be glad if at least HALF the population decided not to procreate at all... and that EVERY child be a wanted, planned-for child, and that those that decided to give up being Parents {which is hard for most people, Gay OR Straight}, would invest their energies instead in providing Daycare, Healthcare, K-thru-College Education, proper nurturing in both food and material goods and Love, for the FEWER children this Planet could better support.....
99
There are some unspoken assumptions here by the troll:
1] Heterosex Marriage is something heterosexuals have to be FORCED into, something unpleasant and un-natural. They will avoid it if they possibly can. It is up to Society to ENFORCE, and I mean FORCE, heterosex marriage.
2] Sexual desire is a SIN and DIRTY. Unfortunately, and unlike heterosex marriage, it is something people WANT. All the people, all the time.
3] Only Rules can prevent this situation from resulting in total chaos; the Primary Rule, is that sex is ONLY ALLOWED FOR PROCREATION INSIDE OF MARRIAGE. That's it: NO SEX outside of marriage; and NO SEX except for procreation. FORCE women to have babies! It's well-known that women HATE BABIES and have to be FORCED to have them; or they would have sex sex sex all the time with no "consequences"! And that would be a SIN.
4] If women weren't FORCED to have babies, the entire Human Race on the Planet would stop. 'Cause women HATE BABIES, remember? Your Mama HATED having you.....
5] Lesbians {those who are childless} are getting away with SIN; and therefore ALL WOMEN ENVY THEM. Those other women who are FORCED into heterosex marriages and having babies they HATE.....
6] If Gay Marriage were permitted, you would get shrieks of relief from ALL men and women, who could now ALL have sex sex sex with NO CONSEQUENCES; exactly what they wanted all along!!! No more poopy diapers, no more sleepless nights, no more medical expenses, no more tantrums to deal with, YAY! A great sigh of relief as the entire Human Race in one big GLORIOUS BACCHANAL PARTIES ITSELF TO DEATH with no descendants!
7] Marriage with sex sex sex and no consequences would prove irresistibly seductive to every single person, male or female; no-one could withstand such an incentive! The Devil would rule..... Babies are such a nuisance! not to mention "the Terrible Twos"! or Teenagers! Suddenly every Human would act completely UNLIKE every mammal, bird or reptile known to exist on Earth.....
More...
1] Heterosex Marriage is something heterosexuals have to be FORCED into, something unpleasant and un-natural. They will avoid it if they possibly can. It is up to Society to ENFORCE, and I mean FORCE, heterosex marriage.
2] Sexual desire is a SIN and DIRTY. Unfortunately, and unlike heterosex marriage, it is something people WANT. All the people, all the time.
3] Only Rules can prevent this situation from resulting in total chaos; the Primary Rule, is that sex is ONLY ALLOWED FOR PROCREATION INSIDE OF MARRIAGE. That's it: NO SEX outside of marriage; and NO SEX except for procreation. FORCE women to have babies! It's well-known that women HATE BABIES and have to be FORCED to have them; or they would have sex sex sex all the time with no "consequences"! And that would be a SIN.
4] If women weren't FORCED to have babies, the entire Human Race on the Planet would stop. 'Cause women HATE BABIES, remember? Your Mama HATED having you.....
5] Lesbians {those who are childless} are getting away with SIN; and therefore ALL WOMEN ENVY THEM. Those other women who are FORCED into heterosex marriages and having babies they HATE.....
6] If Gay Marriage were permitted, you would get shrieks of relief from ALL men and women, who could now ALL have sex sex sex with NO CONSEQUENCES; exactly what they wanted all along!!! No more poopy diapers, no more sleepless nights, no more medical expenses, no more tantrums to deal with, YAY! A great sigh of relief as the entire Human Race in one big GLORIOUS BACCHANAL PARTIES ITSELF TO DEATH with no descendants!
7] Marriage with sex sex sex and no consequences would prove irresistibly seductive to every single person, male or female; no-one could withstand such an incentive! The Devil would rule..... Babies are such a nuisance! not to mention "the Terrible Twos"! or Teenagers! Suddenly every Human would act completely UNLIKE every mammal, bird or reptile known to exist on Earth.....
100
For what it's worth:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
* * *
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
* * * *
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
* * *
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
* * * *
101
This guy is either a 14-year-old douchebag troll copy-pasting inane rhetoric from some gay-hating website to get our reactions or he's a 30-year-old actual-gay-hater copy-pasting inane rhetoric from a gay-hating website to get our reactions. To said guy: If you're the former, good work! Very convincing!
If you're the latter, well, maybe you make some good points. I've always been pretty titillated by the idea of people abusing their power to ruin others' lives. Authoritarianism for the win, brother! Send me a link to one of your petitions.
If you're the latter, well, maybe you make some good points. I've always been pretty titillated by the idea of people abusing their power to ruin others' lives. Authoritarianism for the win, brother! Send me a link to one of your petitions.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (101) RSS