Same-sex Marriage.

[_Chap]

What does the propensity to make a decision have to do with the right to make it?

Since it was asked generically, is it correct to conclude that it also applies to polygamy, polyandry, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and a host of fetishes?

Since the question was whether people should be denied the right to choose an activity based on how many would actually choose to do it, of course! It applies to anything you could come up with.

The reason our society does not allow bestiality and pedophilia is NOT because we think not enough people would be interested in those activities to make the change "worthwhile."

I have tried to hint that last sentence to Wade already, but I don't think he has the right brain software to get a point like that. It's not that he is stupid, but some parts of his mental function seem to operate differently from those of most other people. Or maybe he just decided to switch them off for trolling purposes.

Bet you he now draws the conclusion that you think that people should have the right to do all kinds of bad stuff if they want to.

[Gadianton]

What does the propensity to make a decision have to do with the right to make it?

Before addressing Analytics' tangential question about the constitutionality of certain hypothetical public policies, and postponing for a bit Bazooka's tangential question about opposite-sex marriage ( will get back to these probably tomorrow), let's continue further with the question at hand.

You may recall that earlier in the thread, respondents were unanimous and resounding in answering the question with: "nothing."

However, now, it appears that the answer may logically be "yes" in not a few cases where cost/benefit and optimized utilization of resources is a valid factor of public policy.

Let's now consider yet other cases where the answer may be "yes," and bring the question closer to home regarding SSM.

Again, if we are talking about matters of public policy; and assuming the policy makers are rational and wish assure that, in many cases, the enacted policies are feasible/viable, then it may make sense to factor in propensity.

For example, if policy makers are mulling over the prospect of offering corporate welfare to companies like Salindra, with the intent of promoting alternative energy, it would be reasonable for the policy-makers to consider both the propensity for Solindera to make sound financial decision as well as the propensity for the general public in deciding to purchase Solindra's alternative energy.

I will provide other examples, and ones that are closer to the topic of this, in my next post.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Thinks me that in terms of public health concerns like the alarming occurrence of STD's, were public policy makers to consider, as one of many solutions, promoting marriage (i.e. the right to legally marry) as a means of encouraging long-term and stable relationships and fidelity within those relationships, then in terms of feasibility/viability, it would make sense for the policy-makers to consider the propensity of the target population to get married, and stay married, and remain faithful in the marriage.

Thinks me that regarding the public concern for the welfare of minority-aged children, were policy makers to, as one of many solutions, consider marriage as a means of encouraging long-term and stable relationships and fidelity within those relationships, then in terms of feasibility/viability, it would make sense for the policy-makers to consider the propensity of the target population to get married, and stay married, and remain faithful in the marriage.

Thinks me that in terms of population concerns, where there may be looming the disconcerting threat of decline in population or where there is the perceived need for population growth, were policy makers to, in conjunction with the previously mentioned concerns, consider as one of many solutions, utilizing marriage as a means of encouraging legitimate procreation, then in terms of feasibility/viability, it would make sense for the policy-makers to consider the propensity of the target population to procreate, as well as their propensity to decide to get married, and stay married, and remain faithful in the marriage.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Thinks me that in terms of public health concerns like the alarming occurrence of STD's, were public policy makers to consider, as one of many solutions, promoting marriage (i.e. the right to legally marry) as a means of encouraging long-term and stable relationships and fidelity within those relationships, then in terms of feasibility/viability, it would make sense for the policy-makers to consider the propensity of the target population to get married, and stay married, and remain faithful in the marriage.

Thinks me that regarding the public concern for the welfare of minority-aged children, were policy makers to, as one of many solutions, consider marriage as a means of encouraging long-term and stable relationships and fidelity within those relationships, then in terms of feasibility/viability, it would make sense for the policy-makers to consider the propensity of the target population to get married, and stay married, and remain faithful in the marriage.

Thinks me that in terms of population concerns, where there may be looming the disconcerting threat of decline in population or where there is the perceived need for population growth, were policy makers to, in conjunction with the previously mentioned concerns, consider as one of many solutions, utilizing marriage as a means of encouraging legitimate procreation, then in terms of feasibility/viability, it would make sense for the policy-makers to consider the propensity of the target population to procreate, as well as their propensity to decide to get married, and stay married, and remain faithful in the marriage.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Would you mind providing references for your assertions? I would love to see empirical data backing up your claims since, from my perspective, Heteros seem to be as guilty, if not more guilty within context of your post.

- Doc

[_Bob Loblaw]

Thinks me that in terms of public health concerns like the alarming occurrence of STD's, were public policy makers to consider, as one of many solutions, promoting marriage (i.e. the right to legally marry) as a means of encouraging long-term and stable relationships and fidelity within those relationships, then in terms of feasibility/viability, it would make sense for the policy-makers to consider the propensity of the target population to get married, and stay married, and remain faithful in the marriage.

Thinks me that regarding the public concern for the welfare of minority-aged children, were policy makers to, as one of many solutions, consider marriage as a means of encouraging long-term and stable relationships and fidelity within those relationships, then in terms of feasibility/viability, it would make sense for the policy-makers to consider the propensity of the target population to get married, and stay married, and remain faithful in the marriage.

Thinks me that in terms of population concerns, where there may be looming the disconcerting threat of decline in population or where there is the perceived need for population growth, were policy makers to, in conjunction with the previously mentioned concerns, consider as one of many solutions, utilizing marriage as a means of encouraging legitimate procreation, then in terms of feasibility/viability, it would make sense for the policy-makers to consider the propensity of the target population to procreate, as well as their propensity to decide to get married, and stay married, and remain faithful in the marriage.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Dude, learn to write. "Thinks me"? You sound like one of those teenagers who thinks it's cool to read Catcher in the Rye, wear bowties, and say "thinks me."

The stupidest thing about your arguments is that marriage encourages stable relationships and fidelity, thus lowering the risk of STDs. Even if only 1 in 100 gay couples decided to get married and be faithful and committed (and your statistics show that's not the case), that is one couple more than would be encouraged to do so now, without the legal right to marry. It's incredibly stupid to fault a group of people for not engaging in committed, long-term relationships when the reason for that, in part, is that people like you won't allow them to engage in committed, long-term legal relationships and think that stigmatizing committed, long-term gay relationships is a good thing.

If nothing else, it's good to have you post just to show how moronic the arguments against same-sex marriage really are. Stop pretending to give a crap about gays and their relationships and health outcomes. Everyone who has had any interaction with you knows that's not your motivation.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Would you mind providing references for your assertions? I would love to see empirical data backing up your claims since, from my perspective, Heteros seem to be as guilty, if not more guilty within context of your post.

- Doc

I just finished reading the whole thread. He hasn't provided any reference to support his assertions--and when reasonable people like Runto show him how full of crap he is he starts playing stupid word games and acting all hurt. Don't hold your breath for some actual data. He's fresh out of that.

[_krose]

... in terms of feasibility/viability, it would make sense for the policy-makers to consider the propensity of the target population to get married, and stay married, and remain faithful in the marriage.

Guess it's time to stop sanctioning "traditional" marriages, then, because they have been dismal failures by these measures.

[Guest]

Thinks me that in terms of population concerns, where there may be looming the disconcerting threat of decline in population or where there is the perceived need for population growth, were policy makers to, in conjunction with the previously mentioned concerns, consider as one of many solutions, utilizing marriage as a means of encouraging legitimate procreation, then in terms of feasibility/viability, it would make sense for the policy-makers to consider the propensity of the target population to procreate, as well as their propensity to decide to get married, and stay married, and remain faithful in the marriage.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Seriously? Looming threats of decline in population?

So in those areas where over population is a problem, policy makers should consider discouraging "legitimate procreation" by legalizing Gay marriage?

/boggle

[_Bob Loblaw]

Guess it's time to stop sanctioning "traditional" marriages, then, because they have been dismal failures by these measures.

The big problem for Wade is his argument rests on the belief that marriage doesn't actually have real benefits, so gays shouldn't be allowed to do it. Only straight couples should have the right to engage in a legal exercise that doesn't benefit many people.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Seriously? Looming threats of decline of population?

So in those areas where over population is a problem, policy makers should consider discouraging "legitimate procreation" by legalizing Gay marriage?

/boggle

Your first mistake is assuming Wade isn't an idiot.