toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?

[Rusha]

Uh, yeah.:bang:

Question: is opposition to gay marriage driven in some part by jealousy?

I think it is mainly objected to for religious reasons. Though, you would think individuals who claim to be so against abortion would WELCOME gay marriage.

Who aborts less children than gay couples? Could it be because it takes MORE of an effort and commitment to actually have children?

Hmmmmm :think:

 

[Rusha]

what stupid argument?

You keep claiming marriage is to protect, *the children*.

I, and others, have pointed out to you that not all couples CAN have or intend to have children. So what exactly are these childless couples protecting?

Do you believe that any couple marrying should have to prove they are capable of biologically producing children without use of a surrogate or medical intervention?

IF protecting child is the only reason for allowing marriage, you are insinuating that ALL couples will have and should be required to have children.

Understand yet?

 

[chrysostom]

You keep claiming marriage is to protect, *the children*.

I, and others, have pointed out to you that not all couples CAN have or intend to have children. So what exactly are these childless couples protecting?

Do you believe that any couple marrying should have to prove they are capable of biologically producing children without use of a surrogate or medical intervention?

IF protecting child is the only reason for allowing marriage, you are insinuating that ALL couples will have and should be required to have children.

Understand yet?

it is reasonable to expect a man and a woman to have children when they get married

it is not reasonable to have them tested before allowing them to get married

it is not reasonable to check every so often to see if they have any children

 

[Rusha]

it is reasonable to expect a man and a woman to have children when they get married

Including women who are barren and men who are sterile? How is it reasonable to expect those men and women to biologically produce children?

it is not reasonable to have them tested before allowing them to get married

Why not? IF you are so willing to deny rights and freedoms based on the capability of a couple producing biological children with one another, then you need to follow the expectation to it's conclusion.

it is not reasonable to check every so often to see if they have any children

Why not? YOU set the standard in which you are willing to deny a right to other human beings. Either the standard should be that ALL couples should be able to and mandated to produce babies or they should not? Which is it?

Or perhaps you can admit that this has nothing to do with biology and everything to do about your own personal religious bigotry.

 

[Rusha]

Chrysostom in unreasonable.

 

[chrysostom]

do you know the numbers?
do you know what it takes to test someone?
do you know what it would take to enforce something like this?

 

[Rusha]

do you know the numbers?

Since when, in a free nation, do numbers determine the rights and freedoms of others?

Example: Many old people get confused and have slow reflexes and as a result, cause traffic accidents which can be deadly.

Based on your logic, we should deny DL's to all of the elderly.

Pregnancy IS expensive. Based on your reasoning, all insurance companies should deny benefits for pregnancy.

do you know what it takes to test someone?

It's expensive ... but hey, when it comes to rights and freedoms, money should not be an issue. As a matter of fact, individuals such as yourself who are SOOOOO concerned about *the children* should fork over the money for the testing.

do you know what it would take to enforce something like this?

Yep ... but what does that have to do with denying individuals their right to marry?

YOU are the person who is claiming that all couples MUST be able and willing to produce biological children.

 

[zoo22]

it is reasonable to expect a man and a woman to have children when they get married

It's not reasonable to assume a man and woman plan to or will have children when they get married, and it's not reasonable to define their marriage with an expectation that they will have children.

it is not reasonable to have them tested before allowing them to get married

it is not reasonable to check every so often to see if they have any children

I agree. Both are unreasonable. To say the least.

Particularly because marriage doesn't necessitate having children.

 

[rexlunae]

do you know the numbers?
do you know what it takes to test someone?
do you know what it would take to enforce something like this?

It's free to make people sign an affidavit. It could save a lot of money. I'm a little disappointed no one wants to address this cost-effective solution to keeping childless heterosexual couples from marrying.

 

[Rusha]

It's free to make people sign an affidavit. It could save a lot of money.

So Chrys ... are you on board with the affidavit idea? If so, how long would you give married individuals to produce their first child? What would the penalty be if they missed the deadline? Automatic divorce? Monetary fine? Public execution?

 

[chrysostom]

It's not reasonable to assume a man and woman plan to or will have children when they get married, and it's not reasonable to define their marriage with an expectation that they will have children.

you like numbers

95% of all married couples have children

so it is reasonable to expect them to have children

right?

 

[rexlunae]

So Chrys ... are you on board with the affidavit idea? If so, how long would you give married individuals to produce their first child? What would the penalty be if they missed the deadline? Automatic divorce? Monetary fine? Public execution?

So far, the silence is deafening. He posts on another topic, but ignores a direct question, which has already been seconded. And he has the gall to accuse the rest of us of ignoring his questions.

 

[chrysostom]

let's continue with the numbers
say 6% of all couples are without children
and
say 3% because they can't
and
say 3% because they don't want them
so
for 100 couples you will have to test 200 people to eliminate three people
and
you will have to check the other 97 households every year to find the three who don't want kids

so what do you think of the numbers now?

 

[rexlunae]

so what do you think of the numbers now?

Do you have a source for those numbers, or are you making them up? I can't find many good sources on the actual numbers, but the ones I'm seeing are a lot lower than 95% of all married couples having kids...though they seem to be counting "empty nesters" as being childless.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/03/AR2007030300841.html

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/2182.html
(Note the differences between the "married" and "married with children" bars. Even the 1960 numbers weren't as close together as your 95%)

Maybe we really do need that affidavit. There could be millions of heterosexual couples not meeting the breeding expectations that you have, collecting government cheese without doing their part. They might even be using contraceptives. So what do you think? Affidavit: good idea or not?
:sam:

 

[chrysostom]

It's free to make people sign an affidavit. It could save a lot of money. I'm a little disappointed no one wants to address this cost-effective solution to keeping childless heterosexual couples from marrying.

how would you enforce it?

 

[rexlunae]

how would you enforce it?

The affidavit is merely a sworn statement. So, unless someone had cause to challenge it, it wouldn't ever be enforced except by the unwillingness of people to perjure themselves. However, if it came up, say in the case of a court proceeding or a criminal investigation, that someone had signed such an affidavit with knowledge of their infertility, they could be charged with perjury.

I take it you're not going to defend your numbers then? Did you really just make them up? Do you know that if your opponents ask probing questions that you refuse to answer, you look dishonest?

 

[Uberpod1]

I take it you're not going to defend your numbers then? Did you really just make them up? Do you know that if your opponents ask probing questions that you refuse to answer, you look dishonest?

If you press chrysotom too much, you are going to injure a child (or at least his feelings). :rotfl:

 

[chrysostom]

According to the National Center for Health Statistics, 6.6 percent of American women said they were voluntarily childless in 1995, the last time researchers asked the question

who can say how many of them later had children?

the numbers we are looking for are impossible to get
every household is childless before and after raising a family
just take a look at those you know
and
you should be able to get a feel for the numbers

 

[Town Heretic]

The affidavit is merely a sworn statement. So, unless someone had cause to challenge it, it wouldn't ever be enforced except by the unwillingness of people to perjure themselves. However, if it came up, say in the case of a court proceeding or a criminal investigation, that someone had signed such an affidavit with knowledge of their infertility, they could be charged with perjury.

I take it you're not going to defend your numbers then? Did you really just make them up? Do you know that if your opponents ask probing questions that you refuse to answer, you look dishonest?

I'm 80% sure that Chrys is fudging the numbers. I polled myself, so the margin of error is less than 5%. lain:

 

[chrysostom]

I'm 80% sure that Chrys is fudging the numbers. I polled myself, so the margin of error is less than 5%. lain:

can you tell us who is taking care of your child?

we need it for the poll