Pope: Catholics should ask gay people for forgiveness

[Ben Kenobi]

I think even Ben must believe that marriage should be based on romantic love

I hate English for this.

There's Agape - self sacrificial love.

There's Eros. Both need to be there. Which is romance? Agape or Eros? If you're willing to call Agape the spiritual love aspect, I'll go with that. And yes Eros has to be there too. Missing one or the other, will be bad for the marriage in question.

Just because you're madly in love with someone is not justification for marrying them, the rest of the stuff has to be there too. If they do not want children - then you should not marry. Full stop.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not a fan of social engineering and generally oppose using the tax code to promote or suppress expressions of freedom, eg "sin" taxes. I dont think unmarried people should be compelled to pay higher taxes to subsidize married people nor should homeowners get subsidies from people who dont own homes. But I thought you were arguing against gay marriage, nevermind

I'm arguing against home subsidies here, because it distorts the market on homes and is contributing to the decline of marriage by making it more expensive. I am in favor of reducing taxes on married men and women, because frankly - we need more kiddos.

[Ben Kenobi]

You see, homosexual relationships/marriages don't cause the decline in heterosexual marriages, but both are governed b y the same factors (i.e. the liberalisation of society, which nowadays enables its members to better live out their dreams than in past times)

Basically, you, Jon, and me are all tackling the same observation from different ends. The argument that marriage is solely about Eros is what has lead us here to where we are today. It's not, and shouldn't be governed solely by there. Ming's, Gian's argument, "buth what about lUVVVVE", does nothing to address this. Love is important, but it is not the sole determinant.

Homosexuality is a consequent result, not a cause, of declines in the argument from conjugality going back to the 30s with the liberalization of sterilization laws and contraception.

What seems to get people tripped up is it is not either/or. Arguing that X is an essential component while at the same time Y is also an essential component is not the same as arguing that X is not needed at all.

[Ming]

I am in favor of reducing taxes on married men and women, because frankly - we need more kiddos.

Typical BK... he lost the economic argument so it's time to change the argument.
Now it's about kiddos and not the state.

[Proteus_MST]

Basically, you, Jon, and me are all tackling the same observation from different ends. The argument that marriage is solely about Eros is what has lead us here to where we are today. It's not, and shouldn't be governed solely by there. Ming's, Gian's argument, "buth what about lUVVVVE", does nothing to address this. Love is important, but it is not the sole determinant.

Homosexuality is a consequent result, not a cause, of declines in the argument from conjugality going back to the 30s with the liberalization of sterilization laws and contraception.

What seems to get people tripped up is it is not either/or. Arguing that X is an essential component while at the same time Y is also an essential component is not the same as arguing that X is not needed at all.

But if only couples marry who want to have children, marriage rates will decline even further ... by a great deal.

Also, I guess, it doesn't tackle the issue of couples wanting to raise children (i.e. adopt some) ... after all, raising children is much more expensive than just producing them ... and this is something that can be cone by heterosexual couples as well as homosexual couples and should be rewarded (due to its costs)

[Ben Kenobi]

So now you are arguing simply for wedding stores? There is a lot more to weddings then wedding stores. I thought this discussion was about the state, not the very small percentages of businesses that wedding stores represent.

The point being that wedding stores have a customer base to supply the demand for weddings. The demand for weddings goes down - so does the business that these stores do.

As far as business goes... when people want to increase sales the have sale prices or offer deals... But you don't have sale prices limited to just some of the customers, you offer it to ALL of your customers.

Why?

Then fix the real problem... straight marriages. But as most people have noted, there are OTHER factors in play here.
But your solution is to discriminate against the group where marriages are increasing. You would make a terrible businessman

I've been saying from the start that the real problem has nothing to do with homosexual marriage. Started well before that. You're not a bad businessman, and you're not a stupid man, Ming. I would find it hard to believe that employed as an ad man for a wedding business, that you would be spending any time at all on something that wasn't even 3 percent of their business if their business were failing.

I would expect you to get at the real problem. What are men and women looking for in their weddings? What are the circumstances of the average 30 something looking to marry? And if you're really good, "what can I do to ensure that couples in their 20s thinking about marriage - see me?"

[Ben Kenobi]

But if only couples marry who want to have children, marriage rates will decline even further ... by a great deal.

Something that I've ran into is that this statement now seems rather controversial. This is what I've been trying to get at all thread. *This* is the real problem, and homosexual marriage merely reinforces the perception that children and marriage are no longer intertwined. This is an issue for the state - because the state does have an interest in children.

Merkel is not stupid. She's seen further ahead than a lot of folks here. The problem is that her solution to the underlying problem of an ageing and shrinking workforce is flawed. But she at least has identified the problem.

[Ming]

Ming's, Gian's argument, "buth what about lUVVVVE", does nothing to address this. Love is important, but it is not the sole determinant.

Oh please... Please quote where I have ever said it's only about lUVVVE. Oh that's right, you can't. As usual, you are lying once again.
Marriage is about love, but also about partnership, trust, belonging, sacrifice, and many other things. If you want to add a spiritual element to your marriage, fine by me.
But many people don't see it your way. And many marriages with and without your "spiritual element" have succeeded, and many have failed.

You are more than welcome to believe whatever you want when it comes to your need for a spiritual element... but that's you, and NOT EVERYBODY ELSE.
They are also welcome to believe what they want about what marriage means to them.

So as usual, BK's idea of religious freedom is that only his idea of religion should be free, and nobody else is allowed religious or non religious freedom.

[Ming]

This is what I've been trying to get at all thread. *This* is the real problem, and homosexual marriage merely reinforces the perception that children and marriage are no longer intertwined. This is an issue for the state - because the state does have an interest in children.

Only to bigots like you. And no, it's not an issue for the state. Since when is it the states duty to force people to have children.
Gays getting married has no impact on straight marriages. If people want to get married and have children, gays getting married isn't stopping them.
Yes, there are a lot of factors that can explain why less people are getting married and why many people are having less children or waiting longer in life to have children.
But blaming it on gay marriages... Only bigots like you are trying to come up with lame arguments to try to keep gays from getting married.

[Ben Kenobi]

So as usual, BK's idea of religious freedom is that only his idea of religion should be free, and nobody else is allowed religious or non religious freedom.

I don't see why a Jew would disagree with what I stated were the important components of marriage.

[Ben Kenobi]

And no, it's not an issue for the state. Since when is it the states duty to force people to have children

The state has a prima facie interest in children - given the educational system and the desire of the state to perpetuate itself.

But blaming it on gay marriages

Where am I saying that? The evidence is clear. Homosexual marriage is at best an irrelevant sideshow. The issues existed long before. Homosexual marriage is a symptom, not the cause.

[Ming]

I don't see why a Jew would disagree with what I stated were the important components of marriage.

Gee... so now Jews represent all non Catholics?
There are many people who don't believe that same thing you do... LET THEM BELIEVE WHAT THEY WANT!

[Dauphin]

Wtf is going on in this thread?

Most rights and obligations afforded by marriage have **** all to do with children. Why is this even a debate?

[Ming]

The point being that wedding stores have a customer base to supply the demand for weddings. The demand for weddings goes down - so does the business that these stores do.

We were talking about the state, and your only justification is a few wedding stores... irrelevant.
With the exception of Wedding gowns and Bridesmaid dresses, all other elements of a wedding are still in play... place, food, music, and more.
And that only applies to male gays... Female gays might still be interested in wedding gowns. And males may get more tuxes.

Why?

To generate more sales across your ENTIRE CUSTOMER BASE.

I've been saying from the start that the real problem has nothing to do with homosexual marriage. Started well before that. You're not a bad businessman, and you're not a stupid man, Ming. I would find it hard to believe that employed as an ad man for a wedding business, that you would be spending any time at all on something that wasn't even 3 percent of their business if their business were failing.

I would be focusing on business that was increasing knowing there is very little you can do about segments of your business that are decreasing because of factors out of your control.

I would expect you to get at the real problem. What are men and women looking for in their weddings? What are the circumstances of the average 30 something looking to marry? And if you're really good, "what can I do to ensure that couples in their 20s thinking about marriage - see me?"

I would focus on those that were getting married to look at me. I wouldn't waste the time or money to try to convince somebody to get married. Buy a car... YES.
But get married and have children... Tough sell since they are so many factors involved, and most of which can't be addressed by salesmanship.

[Ming]

The state has a prima facie interest in children - given the educational system and the desire of the state to perpetuate itself.

So... but it's not the state's job to force people to have children.

Where am I saying that? The evidence is clear. Homosexual marriage is at best an irrelevant sideshow. The issues existed long before. Homosexual marriage is a symptom, not the cause.

You did say this

This is what I've been trying to get at all thread. *This* is the real problem, and homosexual marriage merely reinforces the perception that children and marriage are no longer intertwined

So what... is it an irrelevant sideshow or a reinforcement... WHICH IS IT?