The Political Discussion Thread

[Girlbot]

Just an note of interest . Friend of mine works in insurance . She says problems arise when gay couples can marry, they get insurance, but when they move to state where it isn't legal, then the insurances get all screwed up because of the different laws in different states. She says it is a political nightmare for underwriters.

[Falcon Horus]

Hence it should be legal in all states... problem solved.

[Girlbot]

Hence it should be legal in all states... problem solved.

Until then, my friend is tearing her hair out .

[Ukko]

Until then, my friend is tearing her hair out .

[Girlbot]

[SoulReaver]

But they are still reproducing...

only half the couple is. what of the other half?

Apparently there's also a technique called haploidization but I don't know in what sort of stadium this is as far as the science goes since the articles I can find for it date back to 2002 and 2003.

It turns out this is currently in the mouse-testing phase and has yet to make the transition to human embryos, if it ever will do that... not in this lifetime perhaps.

ideally without side-effects (though these would make for interesting horror shows)

How so?

Jo > "it's my kid!"
Jane > "but I had to carry the thing for 9 months!"
Jo > "**** !"
Jane> "***** !"

[Girlbot]

Jo > "it's my kid!"
Jane > "but I had to carry the thing for 9 months!"
Jo > "**** !"
Jane> "***** !"

That's another point for the insurance. If they spliit, and one goes to a state without the marriage laws, but isn't the one who kept the child, but has insurance, now suddenly that child is not a legal dependent. so can't be carried on the insurance.

[Falcon Horus]

Until then, my friend is tearing her hair out .

I'm afraid that may be for a while to come... ...your friend will probably have lost all her hair and more by that time.

only half the couple is. what of the other half?

Adopting the child (as it is over here).

ideally without side-effects (though these would make for interesting horror shows)

Hence why it won't be this lifetime...

Jo > "it's my kid!"
Jane > "but I had to carry the thing for 9 months!"
Jo > "**** !"
Jane> "***** !"

Oh yeah... that...

[Gatefan1976]

That's what I've been explaining all along.

No, you have moved the goalposts around, consistently.

I've covered that already. So long as the vast majority of marriages result in childbirth, the original purpose of marriage holds.

The "original purpose of marriage" was NOT procreation, it was to create societal bonds. Gay couples are just as capable of creating societal bonds as any hetero couple.

The "child-free" phenomenon is fringe, and obviously unhealthy for the society in the long term;

Cause, ya know, "go forth and multiply" is so healthy for society these days................

using it as a justification for defining marriage down is either poor logic

Hang on, I have a quote, How rich in substance!!

or conscious advocacy against childbirth.

Hmm, stay at home dad, 3 kids, don't know how you are getting that.

So you prefer it more euphemistic. Doesn't change the meaning. Western mass culture has massively promoted the view of children as a burden, a career impediment and an obstacle to enjoying one's life to the fullest. That view, if you trace its origins, goes back to ideologies that generally seek to do away with the traditional, time-proven social structure.

So, the argument is "it was good enough for ma and pa so it's good enough for me??
How positively rich in substance!!

What a solid objection! How rich in substance!

I can only work with what I have to work with.

That's because there currently doesn't exist a form of marriage which by definition does not produce children. Once that new category is created, child support benefits will inevitably be attacked as discriminatory.

Anything to back this fear mongering tripe up?

It may seem counter-intuitive, but if you give it a thought it's not hard to find examples of these dynamics. Here in Israel, for example, army service confers certain benefits. People sacrifice three years of their lives for the security of the state. Three years of lost income, three years delay in starting their career, decades of regular call-ups for reserve duty- it makes perfect sense to compensate them, right? Well, not to everyone. The Israeli High Court is constantly bombarded with claims that because two large population groups- the Arabs and the ultra-Orthodox Jews- refuse to serve, it is therefore discriminatory to make army service a prerequisite, or even an advantage, for receiving any financial benefits or employment preference of any kind.

Why *should* people who have served get "employment preferences"? 2 candidates for a job, 1 is slightly better qualified, one has military service, who gets the job? The better qualified one should, that simple.

Once the idea of marriage as disconnected from child-bearing and child-rearing is sufficiently mainstreamed, child support benefits will come under similar attacks. It's only a matter of time.

Child support benefits, benefits for rearing children. No kids (natural or adopted), no benefit, is this such a hard concept for people to grasp? Armed Service benefits, you serve, you get benefits, if you don't, you don't.
You wanna blame something? Don't blame Gays, or people who don't want to serve, blame the mentality of "ME FIRST" and all that entails.

I'm not talking about the law,

I am

I am talking about culture. I am talking about elements of Western culture which originate in Christianity whether or not they are still commonly associated with it. Deny it as you might, Christian ethics shaped and continues to shape your language, your culture and your morality.

I am talking to a Jewish person and he is asserting our culture is rooted in Christianity, Remind me sir, where is Christianity rooted?
As far as Christianities continued influence on "Western society", it is waning. So called "Christian ethics" may still stand to be sure, but not because they are "Christian", but because they are still perceived to be ethical. "First do no harm" is still as ethical today as it was when they were asking Apollo for guidance.

They shape your laws even when the laws are not overtly based on them.

They may shape them insofar as morality informs those in power to make law.

And I demonstrated in response why polygamy does not constitute a good counter-example.

You demonstrated moral reasons why it may not be a good counter example. I explained that I was NOT talking about morals.

That is irrelevant as gay couples do not produce these children. They adopt children produced by someone else. Gay couples' ability to contribute to child-rearing is strictly derivative of the straight, man-and-woman couples' ability and willingness to engage in child-bearing.

A gay man can produce sperm at a sperm bank, a gay woman can get said sperm and produce a child. YAY for science!!

I am absolutely in favor of gay couples' right to adopt children; I will support the right of green Martians to adopt children if they can give a loving home to a child who has none. I am not even firmly against recognizing gay marriage, strictly speaking; truth be told, I actually have professional reasons to be in favor of recognizing gay marriage. But that in and of itself doesn't remove the objection against gay marriage as undermining the social function of marriage as a device to stimulate reproduction.

The "social function" objection has no teeth anymore Womble, there are other ways to ensure the continuation of society. Sure, none are as simple and straightforward as a man an a woman "getting it on" and having kids (no licence required!!), but does that REALLY matter? The state wants well adjusted little "minions". Straight and gay couples are capable of providing said minions either by hetero couplings or scientific intervention.

In other words, you prefer to stick to attacking the weakest arguments against your position rather than honestly engage with the stronger ones as a rational person would have.

No, I find your "societal need" argument just as weak as a religious or moral based one.

[SoulReaver]

Adopting the child (as it is over here).

=> back to the original problem

Hence why it won't be this lifetime...

cheating nature might work some day since humans have always fancied themselves above its laws (interestingly a point of view the Vatican also shares, albeit for different reasons :-)

[Falcon Horus]

=> back to the original problem

Not entirely, gay couples (lesbians) do reproduce... though not without added issues.

[SoulReaver]

Not entirely, gay couples (lesbians) do reproduce...

=> back to the original post

reality check: only one of the two

^_^

[Ukko]

Not entirely, gay couples (lesbians) do reproduce... though not without added issues.

Men also reproduce...

[Falcon Horus]

Men also reproduce...

Having babies... yes, they do.

[Gatefan1976]

=> back to the original problem


cheating nature might work some day since humans have always fancied themselves above its laws (interestingly a point of view the Vatican also shares, albeit for different reasons :-)

Since when has having a better understanding of the "rules" been considered "cheating"?