Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm in support of civil unions, but as a law student, I can't find any reason for the government to recognize gay marriage. The reason heterosexual marriage was recognized by the government in the first place was to encourage childbearing, which in turn encouraged economic development and the carrying forward of a civilization. The only reason governments recognize marriage is to incentivize reproduction. It has nothing to do with civil rights--it's about encouraging men and women to marry so that they will have children.
Now, for my non-legal opinion. Gay marriage didn't emerge as an issue until heterosexual marriage was in decline and successfully de-coupled from childbearing. Thus, gay marriage is an effect of the decline in heterosexual marriage. But although gay marriage is an effect of the decline of marriage, it will also further accelerate the decline of heterosexual marriage, as it has in Sweden. The decline of marriage leads to a decrease in fertility rates, as co-habiting couples are less likely to have children. The decline in fertility to levels below replacement leads to the fiscal ruin of the welfare state.
This will be a very interesting century for those of us in our 20s. It is my prediction that when the entire globe realizes sub-replacement fertility (around 2030 or so) gay marriage, and any other behavior that severs the link between marriage and childbearing will be rejected by those societies who wish to survive. Those that don't will be doomed to eventual extinction by their sub-replacement fertility rates and shrinking populations.
Then legally people barren, over the age, and ones not wanting kids should be barred from marriage. The issue is there is no real "legal" argument one can support for it. If you go the way you say then only healthy child bearing couples should be allowed marriage. You go the religious argument then in the end you have to strips civil benefits from them. The argument is pretty much lost to the right, and it's only a matter of time before the courts decide this on a larger scale.
I'm in support of civil unions, but as a law student, I can't find any reason for the government to recognize gay marriage. The reason heterosexual marriage was recognized by the government in the first place was to encourage childbearing, which in turn encouraged economic development and the carrying forward of a civilization. The only reason governments recognize marriage is to incentivize reproduction. It has nothing to do with civil rights--it's about encouraging men and women to marry so that they will have children.
"As a law student" I take it you haven't yet had your ConLaw II class yet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DunwoodyPanhandle
Now, for my non-legal opinion. Gay marriage didn't emerge as an issue until heterosexual marriage was in decline and successfully de-coupled from childbearing. Thus, gay marriage is an effect of the decline in heterosexual marriage. But although gay marriage is an effect of the decline of marriage, it will also further accelerate the decline of heterosexual marriage, as it has in Sweden. The decline of marriage leads to a decrease in fertility rates, as co-habiting couples are less likely to have children. The decline in fertility to levels below replacement leads to the fiscal ruin of the welfare state.
You're drawing a false conclusion. Gay marriage does not and did not accelerate a decline in marriage. You have no basis for this conclusion, other than a very very week correlation of events argument.
Increasing the pool of people who are eligible to enter the marriage contract would actually serve to INCREASE the number of people who partake in marriage. "Marriage" is no longer seen as important, because heterosexual people have spent the better part of the last century destroying it. Not gays. In fact, in places such as Canada, from 2000 to 2011:
The number of marriages increased in only the territory of Yukon and the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia. Interestingly, the latter are the two provinces in which same-sex couples have been allowed to marry since 2003.
In British Columbia, for example, 3.5 per cent of the 21,981 marriages that occurred in the province were between people of the same sex. Of those, 422, or 54.5 per cent, were female couples and 352, or 45.5 per cent, were male couples.
This will be a very interesting century for those of us in our 20s. It is my prediction that when the entire globe realizes sub-replacement fertility (around 2030 or so) gay marriage, and any other behavior that severs the link between marriage and childbearing will be rejected by those societies who wish to survive. Those that don't will be doomed to eventual extinction by their sub-replacement fertility rates and shrinking populations.
I am of the same general age cohort as you.
It is my prediction that your prediction will not occur. The only way YOUR prediction comes true is if there is a rise in some type of religious fundamentalism over the globe. At that point, American society and Western Civilization ideals of freedom, liberty, individualism and expression are as good as dead any way. I certainly wouldn't want to bring a child into that world.
"Various types of same-sex marriages have existed,[51] ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.[52] In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.[53] Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.[54] An example of egalitarian male domestic partnership from the early Zhou Dynasty period of China is recorded in the story of Pan Zhang & Wang Zhongxian. While the relationship was clearly approved by the wider community, and was compared to heterosexual marriage, it did not involve a religious ceremony binding the couple"
This information is vaguely stated, and probably for a reason. Did these "bindings" or "arrangements" have the same legal status as heterosexual marriage? To the extent that laws existed, no society in human history has ever treated same-sex marriage as the legal equivalent of heterosexual marriage. How could it be? One involves reproduction, and the other does not.
Quote:
I'll disregard your initial appeal-to-authority argument as it is fallacious; as a law student, you should know this.
Wikipedia is not a source. It may be used to find sources, but in and of itself, it is not a source.
Quote:
So anyway, are you blaming the hetero marriage failure rate for the modern emergence of gay marriage support? That would be wicked irony, if so
Yes. The hypothesis is that the decline of heterosexual marriage leads to support for gay marriage, and societal acceptance of gay marriage further accelerates the decline in heterosexual marriage.
Please show me documentation to back up your statement. Otherwise, I'll have to consider it nothing more than conjecture. In a court of law, your case would be thrown out.
Source?
You sure are convinced of that argument, aren't you...
If it has nothing to do with civil rights, then why did the U.S. Supreme Court call marriage a "civil right of man" back in the 1960s?
Oh, that's rich.
I don't have time to provide sources, but they do exist. It's a legal opinion that could be fully supported if we were conversing in a legal context, but we are not.
But just to play devil's advocate, why do you think governments recognized marriages in the first place?
Then legally people barren, over the age, and ones not wanting kids should be barred from marriage. The issue is there is no real "legal" argument one can support for it. If you go the way you say then only healthy child bearing couples should be allowed marriage. You go the religious argument then in the end you have to strips civil benefits from them. The argument is pretty much lost to the right, and it's only a matter of time before the courts decide this on a larger scale.
Ah, but that's the difference. One can be "legally male" or "legally female," but they cannot be "legally barren."
You're drawing a false conclusion. Gay marriage does not and did not accelerate a decline in marriage. You have no basis for this conclusion, other than a very very week correlation of events argument.
Increasing the pool of people who are eligible to enter the marriage contract would actually serve to INCREASE the number of people who partake in marriage.
It is crucial that one distinguishes heterosexual marriage from gay marriage.
Quote:
"Marriage" is no longer seen as important, because heterosexual people have spent the better part of the last century destroying it. Not gays.
I would agree, except I would blame it on Western culture and the government.
Quote:
In fact, in places such as Canada, from 2000 to 2011:
The number of marriages increased in only the territory of Yukon and the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia. Interestingly, the latter are the two provinces in which same-sex couples have been allowed to marry since 2003.
In British Columbia, for example, 3.5 per cent of the 21,981 marriages that occurred in the province were between people of the same sex. Of those, 422, or 54.5 per cent, were female couples and 352, or 45.5 per cent, were male couples.
There is usually an initial uptick in marriage as a whole after gay marriage is legalized, but it then resumes its decline, and at a much faster rate.
Quote:
I am of the same general age cohort as you.
It is my prediction that your prediction will not occur.
Birthrates will likely continue to plunge, and the U.N. predicts the world population to peak, and then begin to decline, around 2050. How will nations that derive thier population growth from immigrants going to grow when even the immigrant nations aren't reproducing in large numbers? They won't, unless they adopt policies that encourage natural population growth (as opposed to immigrant-driven population growth).
Quote:
The only way YOUR prediction comes true is if there is a rise in some type of religious fundamentalism over the globe.
I would like to ask your opinion: who do you think is going to be reaching young adulthood in 2050? Will it be the children of secularists or fundamentalists?
The main weapon in the fundamentalist armoury is demography. The world is going through an unparalleled shift from population growth to decline. The trend is led by Europe, where the numbers of people being born are hardly replacing those dying. India, South-east Asia and Latin America are also following the same path. Prosperity, urbanisation, birth control and female education have all contributed to the overall rate of decline in population. Only fundamentalists are bucking the global trend. Everywhere you look, argues Kaufmann, the religious fundamentalists are multiplying.
Quote:
At that point, American society and Western Civilization ideals of freedom, liberty, individualism and expression are as good as dead any way. I certainly wouldn't want to bring a child into that world
True. But I doubt most of Western Civilization lives to see that moment anyway.
Ah, but that's the difference. One can be "legally male" or "legally female," but they cannot be "legally barren."
You can still establish someone as being unable to have children though which is enough of an argument. And if you use your line of reasoning as why marriage is only conducive between 2 healthy child bearing individuals you would be forced to create that class.
It is crucial that one distinguishes heterosexual marriage from gay marriage.
I would agree, except I would blame it on Western culture and the government.
There is usually an initial uptick in marriage as a whole after gay marriage is legalized, but it then resumes its decline, and at a much faster rate.
Birthrates will likely continue to plunge, and the U.N. predicts the world population to peak, and then begin to decline, around 2050. How will nations that derive thier population growth from immigrants going to grow when even the immigrant nations aren't reproducing in large numbers? They won't, unless they adopt policies that encourage natural population growth (as opposed to immigrant-driven population growth).
I would like to ask your opinion: who do you think is going to be reaching young adulthood in 2050? Will it be the children of secularists or fundamentalists?
True. But I doubt most of Western Civilization lives to see that moment anyway.
With longer and longer lifespans envisioned for the next 40 years the dramatic decline will most likely be pushed back.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
