Who doesn't back gay marriage?

@The Pentacle Queen,

Thanx, PQ. Good to see ya here. I've missed you.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

And being married does not truly impact on the ability of a person to be a good parent.

Narrowly interpreted, this is clearly true. However, absent marriage, and the associated commitment to a lasting relationship by the parents, the overwhelming dasta here indicates the result is a single parent family and relative poverty, both factors strongly associated with limited achievment and related social pathologies. This is certainly not a novel idea or observation.

Frank Apisa wrote:

The entire of your post seemed to me to be a rationalization of your position…and not the true reason you arrived at the position.

Once agian, you don't, and can't possibly, know my inner motives - any more than I can know yours. I don't detect much of a rational approach in your words either: oddly you haven't even attempted to address the statistically likely consequence of continued declines in committed family relationships and the likely consequences based on the observable effects already seen.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

I'm not in any way opposed to civil unions among homosexuals, but I do believe there are serious and meaningful distinctions to be made between such unions and the marriage of a man and a woman.

It is good of you George not to go into detail concerning "serious and meaningful distinctions".

However, your forbearance has led you into a foray of easily challengeable positions and which include the suggestion that the government can tweak the birth rate using various incentives.

A falling birth rate might be the policy. Whether it is or not doesn't alter the fact that a rising one, is not necessarily a good thing as you seem to me to have assumed. Immigration can take up the slack at any time the government chooses. And with the advantage that the manpower arrives ready to put its shoulder to the wheel at the cost of those who reared it into a state suitable for such a purpose.

The required number of babies, the determination of which is one of the things Think Tanks do, by cash payments to ladies. Adjusted to demand.

The subject is the use of the word "marriage" which is a very conspicuous aspect of all the best literature of the western world and if the proposal becomes established practice that literature will be incomprehensible to future generations which will subtract from their pleasure and leave them with the literature spawned by the new dispensation. A fate nearly as bad as death if what we have seen so far is anything to go by.

In my wilder moments I see it resulting in the disappearance of a proper sense of humour as irony cannot be contemplated in the PC world we are dealing with and that cannot be said about marriage between one man and one woman which has been the subject of ribaldry and drollery for as long as the institution has been established.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Narrowly interpreted, this is clearly true.

However, in complete defiance of reality, I'm going to throw out some old canards that surely will convince you of my position.

Or failing that, that I am a complete loon.

Quote:

However, absent marriage, and the associated commitment to a lasting relationship by the parents, the overwhelming dasta here indicates the result is a single parent family and relative poverty, both factors strongly associated with limited achievment and related social pathologies. This is certainly not a novel idea or observation.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

In my wilder moments I see it resulting in the disappearance of a proper sense of humour as irony cannot be contemplated in the PC world we are dealing with and that cannot be said about marriage between one man and one woman which has been the subject of ribaldry and drollery for as long as the institution has been established.

I believe that the likelihood of that disappearance is very dim. We have a great deal of experience with the contradictions and difficulties implicit in a lasting relationship between a man and a woman, and the various evasions used to sustain them. Do you suppose there is any alternative that doesn't itself involve similar or worse contradictions and side effects?

Despite all the irony the world has not yet found a workable alternative.

The demographic decline of Europe is vividly obvious, and it has very serious economic and social consequences which will only worsen in the coming decades. The immigration "solution" has already shown itself to be laden with problems for the European nations involved, including the UK. Moreover, so far in most European nations the amount of immigration allowed is fas yet ar below the numbers required to prevent population decline and aging. We here are beginning to see the leading edge of this problem as well.

1 Reply

look! it's all well and good letting homosexuals get married, but imagine if they started to outbreed us!!!

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

We here are beginning to see the leading edge of this problem as well.

I agree.

I think that the disappearance of a sense of humour is already quite marked. Laughing as a snarl is not a sense of humour.

I will admit though that a sense of humour is not a necessary condition of our further evolution.

If the idea that allowing homosexual "marriage" is at the leading edge we really are in the ****.

We are dealing with "entryism" by a vociferous minority.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5249245)
Frank Apisa wrote:

And being married does not truly impact on the ability of a person to be a good parent.

Narrowly interpreted, this is clearly true. However, absent marriage, and the associated commitment to a lasting relationship by the parents, the overwhelming dasta here indicates the result is a single parent family and relative poverty, both factors strongly associated with limited achievment and related social pathologies. This is certainly not a novel idea or observation.

Nor is it a valid one, George. Marriage does not necessarily impact on commitment. Half the marriages in America end up in divorce. I honestly do not know the exact number of break-up in non-married couples...but I know three couples (including mine and Nancy) where the commitment has been longer lasting than almost any married people we know.

Quote:

Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:

The entire of your post seemed to me to be a rationalization of your position…and not the true reason you arrived at the position.

Once agian, you don't, and can't possibly, know my inner motives - any more than I can know yours. I don't detect much of a rational approach in your words either: oddly you haven't even attempted to address the statistically likely consequence of continued declines in committed family relationships and the likely consequences based on the observable effects already seen.

I did not say I know. It just seems to me to be the case. It is my opinion.

Creating a straw man to argue against should be beneath you, George. You see more ethical than that.

If you honestly do not see reason in what I am writing...what can I say? It is there. Take a more careful look.

1 Reply

@Berty McJock,

Quote:

look! it's all well and good letting homosexuals get married, but imagine if they started to outbreed us!!!

Actually, I don't want to bother to look it up, Berty, but I once saw a statistic that indicated almost 100% of all homosexuals are born of heterosexual pairings.

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I once saw a statistic that indicated almost 100% of all homosexuals are born of heterosexual pairings.

i just looked it up and its practically 100%

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Technically if many lesbian couples use one the partner's bone marrow to create sperm and inseminate the other's egg through in vitro fertilization, and a gay offspring is born, well technically that statistic won't hold anymore. The idea is so radical... males not necessary...

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Probably true - given the present environment.

0 Replies

Whenever I read or hear "If you are truly in love, you don't need to be married," I think..."That person is not married, and probably quite young."

First of all, what the hell is "truly in love?"

The passion of initial "love" doesn't last over a long period of years. Anyone that tells you that they love their mate twenty or even ten years on in just the same way they did when they first "fell in love" is full of crap.

Love deepens and grows more rich over time, but it doesn't maintain the passion and excitement of two horny people who first discover one another, and that's all being initally, "truly in love" is.

How can you truly be in love when you only share superficial experiences and mutual lust. That's love, but to be truly in love you need to share your lives over time.

Marriage creates a bond of commitment that is not easily shed, and allows you to pass through the rough times to stay together and grow your love.

Not everyone needs it but those who don't are rare.

Some folks think way too highly of themselves and/or can be honest about some subjects.

1 Reply

When i made my post, i had already decided to take no notice of O'George's silly post. But it now has become a theme in this thread. I cannot say whether or not O'George is sincere, but if he is, he is seriously deluded. Marriage does not assure that children will be well raised. It does not assure their well-being or even their safety. Read any life of Winston Churchill and you will see something which is common to his class and his times--the nanny. Winston was deeply attached to his nanny, and his parents worked assiduously to prevent the continuation of the relationship after he was sent off to school. He was not allowed to visit her in his school holidays, and even after he became an adult, his mother tried to prevent him from visiting her or even acknowledging her. Yet that woman was the one adult who loved him as a child, based on his attitude toward her.

Marriage does not assure constancy or fidelity either. To take an example from the same class and era, H. H. Asquith is probably the best man who was ever Prime Minister in that nation (in my never humble opinion). Yet even a man of his undoubted probity and honesty in all other matters could not be faithful. Even after marrying Margot Tennant, he chased after young women almost constantly. Marriage does not guarantee fidelity, and certainly not honesty. How often do we know of a woman who foolishly lives for years on end as the lover of a married man who strings her along with lies about divorcing his wife so that they can be together? The people described in Revelations as "Those who loveth and make a lie."

O'George is peddling horsie poop on a grand scale.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

You're right that marriage doesn't assure anything, but then I doubt george believes it does.

What it does do is establish a framework within which good behavior is encouraged and bad behavior is discouraged.

Individuals can easily defy the working of marriage, and often do. What are less obvious are the cases where marriage has reigned in selfishness and excess.

The notion that people truly in love don't need such restraints is ridiculous. Everyone needs restraints. Everyone needs to have their goodness encouraged.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

O'George is peddling horsie poop on a grand scale.

But not nearly on the scale that you do it, and certainly with considerably greater economy of words.

I never suggested or implied any guarantees about marriage at all, only that, despite its flaws, it is better than any alternative we have developed to date. I suspect you would call your technique here that of a straw man.

Instead I generally referred to the rising incidence of social pathologies and mere maladaptation on the part of the offspring of our fast rising population of single parent families, a large number of which arise from out-of-wedlock. I don't think this is a phenomenon unknown to you or most of us here.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

You've alleged all manner of beneficent effects from marriage both for procreation and for fidelity and the duration of relationships--it's no straw man to point out that those benefits do not automatically derive from the institution. Your comments about single-parent families and alleged "social pathologies" are contingent upon there being a rise in single parent families as a result of children born out of wedlock. But as i've already pointed out, and while citing a source, many, many children were once born out of wedlock, arguably most children. Do you have evidence that single parent families are on the rise historically, or simply that the gathering of statistical data since 1965 has increased, resulting in a artifact showing of more single-parent families? If, a century ago, no one really cared, what data could there have been on single parent families?

It certainly is a phenomenon unknown to me, since i see no evidence that it has been occurring.

0 Replies

@Bennet,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5249528)
Technically if many lesbian couples use one the partner's bone marrow to create sperm and inseminate the other's egg through in vitro fertilization, and a gay offspring is born, well technically that statistic won't hold anymore. The idea is so radical... males not necessary...

Consider the wording of the statistic...and consider the word "technical"...and consider how many "lesbian couples use bone marrow to create sperm...

...and I think that the statistic will hold up for a good long time to come. Unless you, of course, are suggesting that the lesbian couples kill off all the heterosexual couples who are part of that statistic.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Whenever I read or hear "If you are truly in love, you don't need to be married," I think..."That person is not married, and probably quite young."

First of all, what the hell is "truly in love?"

The passion of initial "love" doesn't last over a long period of years. Anyone that tells you that they love their mate twenty or even ten years on in just the same way they did when they first "fell in love" is full of crap.

Love deepens and grows more rich over time, but it doesn't maintain the passion and excitement of two horny people who first discover one another, and that's all being initally, "truly in love" is.

How can you truly be in love when you only share superficial experiences and mutual lust. That's love, but to be truly in love you need to share your lives over time.

Marriage creates a bond of commitment that is not easily shed, and allows you to pass through the rough times to stay together and grow your love.

Not everyone needs it but those who don't are rare.

Some folks think way too highly of themselves and/or can be honest about some subjects.

You certainly are entitled to that opinion no matter that I think it to be nonsense.

As for "marriage creates a bond of commitment that is not easily shed"...I am not sure where you are living, Finn, but if you are on planet Earth, even you would be laughing at that.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

What it does do is establish a framework within which good behavior is encouraged and bad behavior is discouraged.

Why should the government be in the business of determining what is good behavior or bad behavior, particularly in human relationships.

Finn, sometimes your extreme liberal side shows itself.

1 Reply

Who doesn't back gay marriage?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know