Rico

 

 

If you look at the trend in the Western world, where gay "marriage" started, marriage rates and reverence for marriage are at all time lows. It's common to refer to the modern West as "post-marriage." A large minority of Western babies, except for Muslims, are to unmarried parents. People who don't marry have less children. So, while some liberals have children, they tend to have much less of them, for example. 

 

But, Love Wins!

I asked this question before, you may have not noticed it.  But do conservatives not fear overpopulation?  

So the percentage of Republicans getting married is declining fast than the national average.  Interesting.  I wonder what republicans have against marriage? 

It is probably because of all that gay porn they are watching.

First, I sincerely don't want to hate or even say that somebody is wrong. I just want to provide a point of view that I think is the best way to run a country. The first thing to realize is that unless it's pure ignorance, like a cargo cult or something, or people proceed from false premises, like Nazis thinking that Germans were on top of evolution and it was inevitable and right to dominate or eliminate inferior people, most have good reasons for believing things.

 

Let's take this issue. People who believe in sexual liberation think they're providing people with more paths to happiness and less judgmentalism that hurts people's feelings. Conservatives think that their way of conducting business would lead to more, longer marriages; more children and children with parents; growth; and an ultimately happier nation. it just so happens that the conservative version is tougher sell at this point in history primarily because the nation is wealthy and people can go on vacation a lot and bone lots of people without consequences.

 

Gay marriage is a stupid societal decision that will lead to confusion, less kids with their mother and father and less kids in general. You can see that in sexual liberal places in the West, there are huge demographic problems partially alleviated with immigration and the loss of a marriage culture.

 

But, Love Wins!

I've been meaning to comment on this, it is just that being a small minded liberal I haven't been able to put my thoughts into words.  Lets set aside that kids would probably rather be adopted by a gay couple than be in the system.  Also that conservative states have the worst divorce rates in the nation (Nevada the only swing state.)  Forget that, I want to focus on this idea of more children = a happier nation.  

 

I see it with the Duggars, these families poping out babies left and right.  I know many Roman Catholics have big families as well.  Do conservatives not fear overpopulation?  Because I do.  I say this sometimes half joking, but I feel it could actually be very possible that there will be water wars in our lifetime.  Well, maybe not for some of the older cats on this board... but you get the idea.

for some reason, i don't think Tank would mind

I think this is one of those times it is best I keep it to myself.

Genesis 2:24, 25 describes the creation of Eve. From the ESV bible "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man (Adam) and his wife (Eve) were both naked and were not ashamed." As Christians, we hold that marriage was instituted by God Himself in the Garden of Eden during creation week. So we believe that the institution of marriage goes back to the very beginning of man's existence on this planet.

Do you really want to bring the bible into this discussion?  Because if I started quoting the bible you'd probably not like the passages I would pick.

Every christian makes their own choice.  I was raised secular and became a Christian when I was 18

Around the world the #1 determining factor on what religion a person identifies with is location. If you are born in India it is highly likely you practice Hinduism. Same if you are born in a Muslim country you will probably be Muslim. So if you are born in the United states and you have family that is Christian, and your friends are Christian, and the girls/boys you date are Christian, and you take winter off for Christmas vacation, and one day you say to yourself I'm Christian. Don't be surprised by that because it was actually pre-determined before you ever had a free thought.

Marriage existed long before Christians did.  That is why it is arrogant and myopic.

Not only that, but marriage pre-dates all the major currently practiced religions. Marriage isn't about God, it is about society.

 like bisexuals have to deny part of their love today. 

Marriage is a commitment to one person.  If you can't commit to one person than don't get married, it is not for you.

Your statement isn't very bright or accurate, but you inadvertently hit upon an interesting topic.

Of course, marriage has remained natural in the vast atheistic communist empires,as it did during the secular fascist governments of Italy and Germany.

It was opposite sex even when homosexuality was accepted like in the ancient world. It's opposite sex in Japan and other secular Asian countries.

They see/saw the utility of parents and a society geared towards families.

Secular people are more easily swayed by fashionable beliefs.When this became cool,nothing else mattered.

If you ask these same people if people should marry before having children or if one person or sixteen should raise a child or if married people should swing with others or really anything that's not racism,they'd shrug their shoulders.

It's impossible to have a rational moral argument with an atheist,as witnessed by their response to beastiality. Who doesn't think that they just pull that reason out of their ass and if it became cool, their reason wouldn't matter.

 

Juan Savage, the champion for conservatives.

Consent means that you agree to something. You're taking away their right to agree to something. you're doing this for whatever reason- bigotry, probably. Are you OK with somebody marrying an animal if the animal doesn't object? Doesn't affect anybody. You can't deny that people love their animals.

But,the main point is that you're OK with some restriction because their love isn't important enough. Thanks for your answer.

An animal can't consent.  

But if you outlaw it,then you're taking away their consent. 

What?  I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

Well there have already been a bunch of tv shows.  

 

My problem with polygamy is it always feels these women (sometimes girls) are being coerced into these marriages.  It is never two men wanting to marry one woman is it?  If it is coerced then it is not consenting is it.  You still haven't changed my mind.

You'd restrict it to 2 adults. How did you come by that definition? 

I haven't seen a convincing argument for more than 2.  If you would like to argue in defense of polygamy then go ahead and make your case.  Change my mind.

Are you seriously contending the nine members of the Supreme Court should make law that affects 300,000,000+? Why even pass laws...why not just let judges make all of the important decisions? And for that matter, why have juries?

Serious question: where would you draw the line as to what judges, rather than legislators, should decide?

As pointed out, judges don't make laws. States, for the most part, do govern themselves. The court is there for checks and and balances because sometimes the majority isn't always right. So yeah, I've never questioned the worthiness of having the supreme court.

But what if the Supreme Court issued a decision you didn't agree with? What if, for example, they said that the unborn have the right to life and all abortion is unlawful? Would you, at that point, believe that 9 judges are best equipped to make decisions which impact the other 320 million of us? Would you not be calling for states, through their citizens, to have the right to decide their own abortion policy?

Are you seriously questioning the merits of the supreme court?

Remember:  Liberals don't care about marriage in general. These are the same guys who used to say it was a piece of paper. They advocated for no-fault divorce and supported alternative living arrangements. Ask one of them what they think marriage is and why they think that. They won't have a clue. 

 

As for the Supreme Court, had McCain won, we probably wouldn't have this decision. Liberals couldn't care less what the constitution says and see it as mostly a tool for advancing their agenda. Things that are actually in the constitution, like gun rights, free speech, and religious freedom are fudgible, but things that are nowhere to be found are absolute.

You put your helmet on a little too tight today.

Who are the people generalizing about fundamentalists? Also, feel free to answer the question of what marriage is and where you got that definition. 

 

Marriage as an institution has been around since before the Egyptians built the pyramids. There is also historical evidence of gay marriage back then. Marriage doesn't necessarily have to be a religious thing since two atheists could wish to marry. My definition of marriage is two consenting adults coming together and telling their friends, family, the world they are bound together for the foreseeable future.

WTF is pro-science?  And why do you act like that is a bad thing?

This Republican field is awesome!

Most of us probably wouldn't be fired for such comments.  I think the problem here is he's too high profile to be making these comments in public.  He is a victim of his own success.  I can fully understand an employer not wanted to be associated further with an employee that makes remarks like this in such a public way.  Especially if that employer is a University.  

 

In the end though I think everything will blow over and he will bounce back.  He is still a freaking Knight.

Who was that big dude that picked up Cersei?

Azor Ahai must be resurrected for the prophecy to come true.

It's a nonstory to me.  

John Oliver did a story on bounty hunters just last week.

He is getting love simply because he is the only alternative to Clinton at the moment. Many Dems want nothing to do with her. If someone viable like Warren would run then Bernie will once again be an afterthought.