1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Responsible procreation

Discussion in 'Current Events, World News, & LGBT News' started by mnguy, Feb 9, 2013.

  1. mnguy

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2006
    Messages:
    2,377
    Likes Received:
    450
    Location:
    Mountain hermitage
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Some people
    This phrase comes up from the pro-discrimination side all the time and I just can't figure it out. They're somehow trying to use this "idea" to uphold discrimination. How does offering civil marriage only to straight couples promote responsible procreation? I just don't get it. If the government offered money only to married people with children that might encourage people to get married, but it doesn't mean their pregnancies would be responsible. Single moms can get financial support so where is the incentive to get married? Furthermore, how does including gay couples in civil marriage undermine whatever supposed promotion of responsible procreation there is now? What it really comes down to is they don't want gay people in their marriage club so they make up all these crazy "reasons". :eusa_liar
     
  2. This is how they make up for having no real reason to justify their bigotry.
     
  3. Pret Allez

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    6,785
    Likes Received:
    67
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Gender:
    Female (trans*)
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Some people
    I'm engaging in responsible procreation right now.
     
  4. Gen

    Gen
    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2012
    Messages:
    4,070
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Nowhere
    The common understanding seems to be that if they allow same-sex marriage everyone, particularly men, will run off to marry men instead of women. Apparantly, either homosexual relationships are more alluring and enjoyable than heterosexual relationships, or they believe them as such........

    Bigotry is always nonsensical at it's heart.

    Why does this sound so formally dirty? ; )
     
  5. Pret Allez

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    6,785
    Likes Received:
    67
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Gender:
    Female (trans*)
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Some people
    They are definitely on to something.



    I had not meant it to sound so. I was only making reference to the fact that I do not intend to have children. As far as I'm concerned, children are sexually transmitted infections.
     
  6. Reptillian

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2012
    Messages:
    602
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Marriage is just bleh of a contract. Domestic partnership is the way to go.

    ---------- Post added 9th Feb 2013 at 05:35 PM ----------

    I mean marriage seems like too much obligations. Rather go with domestic partnership.

    Wish I could clarify bleh as in 'just no, not those kind of obligations and work for the rest of my life'
     
  7. Fiddledeedee

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2011
    Messages:
    955
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    England
    Homosexuals likely won't be having biological kids in their relationships anyway, so why would allowing them to marry discourage procreation?
     
  8. FruitFly

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    805
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    England
    Gender:
    Female
    Responsible procreation is something that has been bandied about in the face of all things threatening what the majority viewed a normal relationship. If I recall rightly (and I may not) a few individuals from way back when were stating that allowing interracial marriage was an affront to responsible procreation.

    The current generation of responsible procreation shouters seem to be focusing on the fact that marriage is for procreation, and as such it encourages heterosexuals to get married and have babies within the sanctity of marriage. Ignoring of course all the individuals who marry without ever having children, who have children outside of marriage, who may even opt to never get married yet still bring up bucket loads of children, the argument is essentially weak. From what I have gathered it focuses on reproduction and encouraging that reproduction to happen in a responsible way, which is not really a valid stance against gay marriage.

    The more I read of this particular stance, the more perplexed I become. It really does seem to be a straw that is being clutched at. It does not surprise me though, given the history of compulsory sterilisation in relation to eugenics. I mean, as much as people would like to believe society has moved on there are still pockets who believe that those outside of what they consider fit and normal should not be allowed to enter into anything that resembles what they believe good and proper. It only takes one charismatic/particularly shouty individual to get people riled up and spouting things an outsider would look at and go "eh... and you say these people shouldn't be allowed to marry?!".


    I'm rambling.


    It's a weak stance to take, one which smells far too much like a throwback to previous issues, but unfortunately one far too many are willing to parrot without considering the validity of their statement. Or maybe they do and it seems completely valid to them. That's even sadder really.
     
    #8 FruitFly, Feb 10, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2013
  9. Deaf Not Blind

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    Messages:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    WA DC
    Gender:
    Male
    tmi

    ---------- Post added 10th Feb 2013 at 04:44 AM ----------

    Only yours...mine will be awesome!

    ---------- Post added 10th Feb 2013 at 04:48 AM ----------

    Obligations? :confused: I seen some really great CONTRACTS if you consider both of them are in such wedded bliss for 4 decades that when an accident claims one of them, they other wants to curl up and die...and struggles with depression a year on meds. Nah, it is not obligation. A loving marriage is a promise to never leave, not cheat, and even if one gets cancer they will stay there thru the bad times even til death. It is noble when done right, anything lesser is a sham.

    ---------- Post added 10th Feb 2013 at 04:57 AM ----------

    yeah but your ramblings make more sense to me a conservative GOP Christian than theirs do.

    I tried to be willing to hear out what they meant, and most of it seemed talking points, sound bites. I didn't hear a real non religious reason. If they could show me good reason i would agree and sign away! the only legit sounding stuff i heard was fear the next wave...that is right, they don't fear gays marrying...it is polygamy. than why did they choose a Mormon for president, there are some who will say that he can issue it in! And the next was a man bot sex thing where pedophiles want consent age dropped to say 13. i thought maybe, ok. but really i feel we should fight those issues as they arise, not justify banning gay marriage so maybe it is harder for pervs to get children. I think it is fear and ignorance and peeps jumping on the bandwagon. I didn't follow them this November because God told me they were wrong.
     
  10. Metleon

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2012
    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    I know plenty of straight couples that, IMO, don't deserve kids. Most of my neighbors across the street yell at their kids (and dog) all the time and most of my friends' parents are completely crazy. My one friend's mom made her homeschooled for a year just so she could take care of her baby sister. You know, instead of making the actual parent take care of the kid.
     
  11. mnguy

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2006
    Messages:
    2,377
    Likes Received:
    450
    Location:
    Mountain hermitage
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Some people
    Ok, good, so it's not just me who can't figure any logic to this. I didn't think there was but thought I'd throw it out there to see if anyone here could come up with something. I'd love to hear one of the Supreme Court justices write about what a ridiculous "reason" that is to exclude gay couples and show it for what it is, illogical bigotry.