VeteranXX Contributor
|
Yeah, but black people don't push their adopted kids to be black if they arent
|
|
|
VeteranXX
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by coombz
I was thinking about the adoption thing yesterday, because I kinda agreed with Val's post when I first saw it
But then I thought about all the straight couples, married and otherwise, who are terrible/abusive parents and ruin their kids lives...and that moved me back into the 'people should need to pass some kind of test or apply for a license to be parents' camp
there are lots of gay couples who are saner, smarter and more suitable to raise children than some of the oxygen thieves out there
|
I'll just leave this here:
Promoting the Well-Being of Children Whose Parents Are Gay or Lesbian
Quote:
Extensive data available from more than 30 years of research reveal that children raised by gay and lesbian parents have demonstrated resilience with regard to social, psychological, and sexual health despite economic and legal disparities and social stigma. Many studies have demonstrated that children's well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents' sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents. Lack of opportunity for same-gender couples to marry adds to families’ stress, which affects the health and welfare of all household members. Because marriage strengthens families and, in so doing, benefits children’s development, children should not be deprived of the opportunity for their parents to be married. Paths to parenthood that include assisted reproductive techniques, adoption, and foster parenting should focus on competency of the parents rather than their sexual orientation.
|
|
|
|
VeteranXX
|
I'll just leave this here:
Westboro Baptist Church Home Page
Quote:
The only lawful sexual connection is the marriage bed. All other sex activity is whoremongery and adultery, which will damn the soul forever in Hell. Heb. 13:4. Decadent, depraved, degenerate and debauched America, having bought the lie that It's OK to be gay, has thereby changed the truth of God into a lie, and now worships and serves the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen! Rom. 1:25. But the Word of God abides. Better to be a eunuch if the will of God be so, and make sure of Heaven. Mat. 19:12. Better to be blind or lame, than to be cast into Hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched. Mk. 9:43-48. Abstain, you fools.
|
|
|
|
VeteranXX Contributor
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amadeus
So heterosexual couples who don't want to have kids shouldn't be allowed to marry either?
|
*Edit* I think it's unfair for people to get married who don't want children. I think that the financial benefits were put in place, like I said, to facilitate raising children and perpetuating a family.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amadeus
How is this relevant to marriage between men who aren't interested in marrying women?
|
Polygamous societies are more violent, hence why most societies have marriage - or some equivalent - to help evenly spread the women out and prevent a large percentage of sexless bachelors. It's relevant because it's an institution that has nothing to do with gay men; it wasn't designed for them.
I have no problem with people choosing whoever they want for a healthcare power of attorney, who they live with, who they sleep with, who they bequeath their possessions to, etc. But I'm not sure they should be afforded the same financial benefits as heterosexual couples who want to raise a family.
|
|
Last edited by TechnoDonut; 11-06-2018 at 18:40..
|
Veteran++ Contributor
|
The average gay couple are so devoid of anything good that even my ****** self stays far from them.
|
|
|
VeteranXX
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TechnoDonut
I think it's next to pointless for people to get married who don't want children. I think that the financial benefits were put in place, like I said, to facilitate raising children and perpetuating a family.
|
So should it be illegal to marry if you don't want kids, or not?
|
|
|
Whiny BitchX Contributor
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amadeus
So should it be illegal to marry if you don't want kids, or not?
|
Don't be retarded. Of course not. The idea is that if government benefits are applied for the benefit of child rearing, then the benefits should be extended when children are present and not on the basis of a marriage.
|
|
|
VeteranXX Contributor
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amadeus
So should it be illegal to marry if you don't want kids, or not?
|
I don't think that the financial benefits of marriage should be afforded to people other than for raising a family.
|
|
|
Veteran++ Contributor
|
what about real estate ramifications and the housing crisis
it's good for everyone economically speaking to encourage two people to share a home
|
|
|
VeteranXX
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fool
Don't be retarded. Of course not. The idea is that if government benefits are applied for the benefit of child rearing, then the benefits should be extended when children are present and not on the basis of a marriage.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TechnoDonut
I don't think that the financial benefits of marriage should be afforded to people other than for raising a family.
|
What if two people want to marry for non-financial reasons (e.g. to become each other's next of kin), and without intent to raise kids? Should that be legal?
|
|
|
Whiny BitchX Contributor
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bowl of blood
what about real estate ramifications and the housing crisis
it's good for everyone economically speaking to encourage two people to share a home
|
Marriage isn't a requirement for that
|
|
|
Whiny BitchX Contributor
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amadeus
What if two people want to marry for non-financial reasons (e.g. to become each other's next of kin), and without intent to raise kids? Should that be legal?
|
It shouldn't be a question of legality.
Seriously what part of this are you not getting?
|
|
|
VeteranXX
|
the financial angle is weird to me anyway
in this country and back home in the UK, you're afforded the same benefits/status as a married couple if you are in a legit long term relationship
plus you have the whole epidemic of gold digging whores thing with your divorce laws, more nonsense
|
|
|
VeteranXX
|
I remember reading about unusual family structures in Heinleins the moon is a harsh mistress
I wonder if that kind of thing is practiced anywhere currently or if it's at all viable, like some kind of clan structure for family to help ensure it's members survival
|
|
|
VeteranXX
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fool
It shouldn't be a question of legality.
Seriously what part of this are you not getting?
|
Marriage is a legal concept, of course it's a question of legality.
Should it be legal or not?
|
|
|
Veteran++ Contributor
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fool
Marriage isn't a requirement for that
|
um, yeah, but marriage also isn't a requirement for having kids. the two just happen to totally randomly be statistically correlated and one just happens to totally randomly predict the other
it's called incentivization
|
|
|
Whiny BitchX Contributor
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amadeus
Marriage is a legal concept, of course it's a question of legality.
Should it be legal or not?
|
The people you're asking are saying that marriage should not be a legal concept. If it's not, then there is no question of whether it should or should not be legal, it simply would be. There's absolutely no reason to outlaw marriage, so I honestly have no idea what it is you're trying to argue. You're coming across as being deliberately obtuse.
|
|
|
Whiny BitchX Contributor
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bowl of blood
um, yeah, but marriage also isn't a requirement for having kids. the two just happen to totally randomly be statistically correlated and one just happens to totally randomly predict the other
it's called incentivization
|
Sure, I don't disagree. I just find it interesting that the incentives for kids come through incentivizing marriage instead of directly incentivizing children.
|
|
|
Tribalwar Admin
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fool
Sure, I don't disagree. I just find it interesting that the incentives for kids come through incentivizing marriage instead of directly incentivizing children.
|
the entire welfare system incentives kids just fine.
|
|
|
VeteranXV
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bowl of blood
what about real estate ramifications and the housing crisis
it's good for everyone economically speaking to encourage two people to share a home
|
No it's not.
Based on Keynesian economics anyways.
Imagine a world where most couples divorce and then they own/rent two homes. You just doubled the market. Since real wealth generation doesnt actually matter and simply expanding the market counts. Twice the amount of people with mortgages. Twice the amount of people more likely living paycheck to paycheck which means spending money (paycheck to pay checkers are proven biggest spenders per dollar earned) instead of saving money like greedy hoarders who dont want to stimulate the economy.
If you illegalized divorce let's say and forced couples to live under the same roof you literally just destroyed the housing market as such a significant amount of child rearers have seperate homes/apts that the percentage of market lost just tanked the market.
Obviously I'm hyperbolizing but our current government economic incentives offered to individuals by and large encourage consumption and expenditure over rainy day savings and conservative (fiscally) decision making.
|
|
Last edited by Esteban_Villa; 11-06-2018 at 19:31..
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
AGENT: claudebot / Y
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:22.
|