[Trenacker]

Psudo, your conclusions on marriage are not necessarily substantiated by the facts that you have cited. Think also about the fact that path dependency for women isn't as great in the U.S. as elsewhere in the world: wives are no longer compelled to remain in unhappy marriages out of economic necessity. I'm also interested in questioning your conclusion that many marriages end today without meaningful attempts to resolve outstanding issues beforehand. That's an unsubstantiated conclusion based on an inherent assumption about the immaturity and values of persons entering marriage.

Even you admit that some marriages ought to be dissolved for very legitimate reasons. From what I can tell, those reasons can, in your opinion, include "irreconcilable differences" -- that is, mere "falling out of love." I think that to try and build a set of metrics to try to distinguish reasonable divorces from unreasonable would be folly.

To the best of my knowledge, economic subsidies have not proven effective in Russia. Then again, I think even that observation detracts from the mere fact that, unless you're looking to try to neutralize boom and bust cycles altogether, there are far better ways to ensure workforce availability. One option involves loosening restrictions on legal immigration. Another involves investing in health remedies that address the effects of aging, which would also reduce the overall number of persons needing care.

I agree with your conclusions about the limitations of current immigration policy, aside from your conclusions about culture wars.

Gays may not have destines written in stone, but I think you're fooling yourself if you think that barring gay marriage or discouraging gay lifestyles will meaningfully increase the birthrate by shunting gay people into heterosexual relationships that result in childbirth.

[Kjorteo]

Trenacker, I basically agree with everything you just said, except

Trenacker wrote:

Gays may not have destines written in stone, but I think you're fooling yourself if you think that barring gay marriage or discouraging gay lifestyles will meaningfully increase the birthrate by shunting gay people into heterosexual relationships that result in childbirth.

Psudo never called for that.

But, you know, other than that!

[Trenacker]

No, he didn't. Please excuse me. What I should have said was, "You're fooling yourself if you think that implicitly discouraging gay lifestyles by throwing government backing behind heterosexual marriage will shunt gay people into heterosexual, child-bearing relationships to a statistically significant degree."

[Psudo]

Trenacker wrote:

I'm also interested in questioning your conclusion that many marriages end today without meaningful attempts to resolve outstanding issues beforehand. That's an unsubstantiated conclusion based on an inherent assumption about the immaturity and values of persons entering marriage.

I think the examples provided substantiate it's occurrence. I think the fact that there is such a thing as a Divorce Party demonstrates a change in the cultural concept of marriage.

Trenacker wrote:

From what I can tell, those reasons can, in your opinion, include "irreconcilable differences" -- that is, mere "falling out of love."

I think the phrase "falling out of love" inherently conflicts with what love is. But you'll notice I'm not advocating law that mandates people adopt my opinion. All I'm asking for is recognition for my view, which I think is a very popular view.

Trenacker wrote:

Gays may not have destines written in stone, but I think you're fooling yourself if you think that barring gay marriage or discouraging gay lifestyles will meaningfully increase the birthrate by shunting gay people into heterosexual relationships that result in childbirth.

I'm curious how improving gay rights could possibly discourage anything.

[Trenacker]

A change in the cultural concept of divorce does not necessarily speak to the frivolity of the act itself. Divorce is not only more common than ever before, but also more possible than ever before -- for economic, social, and legal reasons that were not necessarily applicable even 50 years ago.

I think I've lost sight of the duality of your proposal. Could you clarify?

I didn't say that improving gay rights could discourage people from choosing homosexual lifestyles. I believe now that I misinterpreted the point you wanted to make. I wanted only to challenge any notion that discouraging gay lifestyles might lead to a statistically significant "bump" in heterosexual marriages or childbirth.

[Psudo]

The duality of my proposal... Imagine a marriage contract. On the front, it says "choose a marriage type: A or B." If you pick B, you have to fill out the back and meet some criteria. If you don't qualify for B, you can still get A. The country is divided on the issue of marriage; this would allow for that without making either side live by the other's standards.

Everything else is nuance.

[Bruce_E_T]

Psudo wrote:

The duality of my proposal... Imagine a marriage contract. On the front, it says "choose a marriage type: A or B." If you pick B, you have to fill out the back and meet some criteria. If you don't qualify for B, you can still get A. The country is divided on the issue of marriage; this would allow for that without making either side live by the other's standards.

Why not just have A?

The nation is divided because one side of this "debate" insists on projecting division into it.

[Psudo]

Why not just have B? A large proportion of the USA insists on A only, and a similarly large proportion insists on B only. I think debate has become futile (doesn't this thread prove that?), so the only endgames are 1) irrational force of will until one side caves, or 2) a two-system compromise. I'm opting for coexistence. Everyone else (Kjorteo excepted) is opting for force.

[Bruce_E_T]

Psudo wrote:

Why not just have B? A large proportion of the USA insists on A only, and a similarly large proportion insists on B only. I think debate has become futile (doesn't this thread prove that?), so the only endgames are 1) irrational force of will until one side caves, or 2) a two-system compromise. I'm opting for coexistence. Everyone else (Kjorteo excepted) is opting for force.

What does force have to do with it? Just draw up some sort of generic Marriage certificate, get every one to sign it and there you go. Too easy?

[Psudo]

I'm talking about the move to force one side to live under rules dictated by the other. In the USA, half the nation feels one way about gay marriage and the other half feels another. Instead of finding some middle ground or seeking some policy that both sides consider an improvement, the issue is treated as a zero sum: one side can only win by making the other side lose. The sides are different sizes in Canada, but the zero-sum treatment of the issue is the same. Both sides are expected to force the other to live under a standard they despise, with no third way allowed. That's what I mean by "force of will."

[Bruce_E_T]

Psudo wrote:

I'm talking about the move to force one side to live under rules dictated by the other. In the USA, half the nation feels one way about gay marriage and the other half feels another. Instead of finding some middle ground or seeking some policy that both sides consider an improvement, the issue is treated as a zero sum: one side can only win by making the other side lose. The sides are different sizes in Canada, but the zero-sum treatment of the issue is the same. Both sides are expected to force the other to live under a standard they despise, with no third way allowed. That's what I mean by "force of will."

A message from the "People doing it to themselves" department.

What you see here is what I would call "authoritarianism". Each position claims jurisdiction on an either/or basis. One size fits all, life does not happen in colour but only in Black and White.

Have fun folks.

[raydan]

You're different...
...half of the people are OK with that and don't have a problem at all.
...the other half though do, even though your existence causes them absolutely no harm and they can still live their life as they seem fit no matter what you do, even if you marry.

But since those people do have a problem and even though I have no idea what that is, you will be treated differently. We may make special provisions for you, but those will be there just to show you that you are different.



I have spoken...