Marriage Amendment: Go Forth & Be Fruitful... Long Version
Friday, July 7, 2006 at 08:55PM Have you ever taken the time to consider why every Catholic Pope discourages contraception, and abhors abortion? How about strength in numbers? It is only recent economics that has people waiting until their late 20's or even 30's to marry (me included), and then produce offspring... If you think I am making that up, ask your parents and grandparents? At what age did they marry and have children?
(buy this Big Popein' at Bold Conservative.com) Abortion... Now if you are the Pope, first of all you have been preaching to your flock.. get married.. before you have babies in the first place.... exactly why would you ever condone aborting babies that come from those married couples making Love? That gets in the way of having more Catholics doesn't it?
So, for say Madonna... and any other "intellectual" from the political left.... How about quitting your "bashing campaign", of the guy who is in charge of proliferation of his own religion? Does that not make sense to you? The Left is always talking about Freedom, and infringement upon the "Liberty of the People"... The Hypocrisy shows.
Now, having said this, why should the United States, promote this Catholic policy of proliferation in the United States? OK, have you noticed the borders are wide open, and a lot of people from Mexico are moving here for greater employment, educational, and above all transportation opportunities? That's a joke about the love for low riders. We need the population growth, period.
(Click My Ride) Now, out of all seriousness, basic commonsense would tell us, that the politicians congregating in Washington DC, should have seen this trend in the 1970's, or at the very least the 1980's and put in place the financial tax incentives to encourage us Americans to not delay having children... if for no other reason than to save Social Security for themselves!! Oh, I forgot, our DC politicians don't depend on Social Security. You see where I am going with this?
Finally, you demand! "What has this got to do with the argument over same sex marriage? Well, I will tell you. A man and a women will produce children, at whatever birth rate you apply to that coupling... 1.4, 2.2. or 3.6 kids per coupling. Should all of those marriages be successful, and not end in a divorce, the children should grow up with the role models of their parents, lead productive lives for themselves, and help proliferate our nation... Have you ever noticed that the Pope (I'm back on that guy again), discouraged divorce? Ever wonder why?
OK, for simplicities sake... to nurture that "family thing", in that a good mother and father will produce kids who are productive citizens, who we do not have to jail, pay welfare too... or fall into a lot of other social ills... It's a system, that I know is not perfect, but that basic system has worked for millennium?
Now, having said all of that, I also know some people feel that they are "predisposed" not to fit into that system of one man, one woman, and they feel another "mixture" is to their liking.... I say fine... go for it... but a basic fact is that it doesn't "fit into our little plan" of population growth for our nation.....
The Government of the United States gives tax breaks to married couples for what reason? Because UNCLE SAM WANTS YOU TO HAVE MORE TAXPAYERS!!! Ok, you thought that was rude... I call it "wake up and smell the freaking coffee people". Uncle Sam could care less about your financial circumstances, or he would forbid you from getting into debt in the first place....
Big hint on that last sentence... Uncle Sam gives you a tax break for getting into debt... It's called the mortgage deduction. As a matter of fact, I wonder if Our Uncle pursued a policy of subsidizing kids as fervently as he favored the home loan industry in the US... would unemployment in the US be so bad that we Americans would be looking for work in Mexico?
Really the bottom line is that "same sex marriage" is a "Lifestyle" choice period. You are free to pursue it... go for it, but do not even for one minute think about "embedding this lifestyle in our tax code"... It doesn't make sense, and if you think people are "scamming the system now", wait until same sex marriage gives you a tax break!
Seriously, there are plenty of cases now where poor grandma and grandpa die, but it goes unreported because the Social Security checks quit coming... It's probably why Gubment wants us all in nursing homes, so they can verify when we check out. Now couple this with the college kids who all of a sudden decide to get married... Bob, Brian, Tracey, and Tonya get married (supposedly to each other), share the same two bedroom apartment, but not the same bedrooms. They get the tax break while still avoiding the actual "entanglement of marriage" because there is no love in either relationship. Divorces are not handled like business deals, you know because of that "Love Thing". I'm not saying this will become rampant, but if it will save a couple thousand dollars a year for college students do you think it is going to happen?
To address the issue of two women marrying and proliferating by whatever means to have children, let's leave that social experiment to other nations. There needs to be a Male influence in the household period. My personal rebellious childhood bears that out, so don't even begin to lecture me that you can raise young males without a father around.
In conclusion, I am not even touching the "moral arguments" involved in why we shouldn't have same sex marriage, I am just trying to "flesh out" the human side of why "same sex marriage" is not a good idea for our country, or really even the world in the long run... We need the One Man, One Woman Marriage Amendment to be implemented into our U.S. Constitution period. Let the rest of the world pursue their own social experiments.
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (11)
It was kinda long, and I at least tried to make it somewhat entertaining, and I am hoping to just deliver a "common sense" argument to people about human nature.... and economics.
It may resonate among those who are hungry to have their "common sense" [read: prejudice] validated, but it doesn't even come close to comporting with reality. Sorry, but as an argument, this is just lame.
You are half way there, a man & woman produce children, we agree on that, and the govt. subsidizes it because of that. I am afraid you are wrapped up in the "emotional" side of this argument.
David:
I say this to DWJ http://www.spankthatdonkey.com/spankthatdonkey2/2006/7/10/std-responds-to-checking-facts-valid-arguments.html
Prejudice means to pre judge. The only prejudice I have here in my post is that a man & women procreate babies. How in the world am I prejudice in arguing that only a man & woman should benefit from our tax code?
You are throwing around the word "prejudice" like I am going to run away... and I think you and DWJ need to do some fact checking... You just chimed right in on my "fallacious" statements, without even bothering to do the "simple Google" DWJ is talking about.
Yeah, thanks for having an open mind, and not being "prejudiced" towards my argument for the Marriage Amendment!
n.
An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
A preconceived preference or idea.
The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions.
Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.
tr.v., -diced, -dic·ing, -dic·es.
To cause (someone) to judge prematurely and irrationally.
To affect injuriously or detrimentally by a judgment or an act.
-------------------------------
One does not prejudice (pre-judge), so your use of the word is wrong, Chris. One causes others to pre-judge. Therefore, David is correct that you may be causing others to prejudice, or pre-judge.
Who "dragged" prejudice onto this post? Not I. Yes, I have a preconceived preference or idea, that males & female "couplings" produce children.
and to suit you I copy and paste what you have posted here
"The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions."
One does not pre-judge? What does preconceived mean? Before? You are trying to create a "smokescreen" to cover your retreat...
It is telling that you come onto this post and only comment upon the use of a word. I trust you would also like to argue out other points regarding my post?
It seems only "KeyHole" is taking that road, which I appreciate... discussing the merits of my post, not trying to pick at a word here, or a definition there.
I've got like 6 main premises going on up there, and even put them in bullets over here http://www.spankthatdonkey.com/spankthatdonkey2/2006/7/10/std-responds-to-checking-facts-valid-arguments.html
Let's discuss the merits of my post. I'll be Your Huckleberry :-)
Once you let government make the kinds of policy choices you advocate for people's private lives, there is no end. The Pope has a "country" ... the Vatican. Let him rule there, not here.
I was responding to your response to David's response to your post. Now I suppose I should respond to your response to my response to your response to David's response to your post.
One could argue, of course, that the government does not subsidize marriage in order for couples to have children, but because a household with two wage earners (or two potential wage earners) will require less assistance from the government than a single person might. Also, should that single person (male or female) have a child, it is in the government's best interest (in terms of saving money) for that child to be raised in a two-wage-earner household, since the income level would disqualify the household for poverty assistance.
In addition, there are many pyschological benefits to marriage (or at least a stable one, unstable marriages are not pyschologically pleasant). Here is a Heritage Foundation study (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Features/Marriage/index.cfm) showing that marriage has numerous social benefits. The particulars of the marriages were not mentioned (male-male, male-female, female-female), but the benefits acrue primarily from the dual member aspect.
What you (and most conservatives) are really upset about is divorce and out-of-wedlock pregnancies. Of course, this amendment does nothing to solve either of those problems. But show me a candidate promising to outlaw divorce and force fathers to marry the mother of their child, and I'll show you a politician who will never win a race outside of the reddest district.
Society believes government is not the answer to this problem. In that, the vox populi learned their lessons from Professor Reagan much better than your party has.
I do Thank You for stopping by STD, and expressing "our" mutual concerns over "Communist States" such as China.
Ultimately, as the United States moves into a population - geographic whereby the US Govt. feels that we will need to limit domestic population growth... The point will be "moot", if you have not already noticed, the ground work for "colonizing" the Moon and Mars are being laid by the Bush Administration.
I'd love to see a Martian Sunset myself, as my forefathers marveled at the "New World" of America itself....
It is our future, as a Nation, and a Civilization. My fear is that those left on earth will be "trapped" in a socialist system of governence...
I am sure you would agree, since you have expressed, or have seemed to express such fears over government "social engineering"?
I am not "implying that the Pope should rule in the USA"; I only used the example of Catholicism, because it is so universally known. Unfortunately, also attacked in a Country that prides itself on Freedom of Religion.
In my "perfect little world" One wage earner would be able to support a family. In my profession of sales, many managers "look to hire" a salesman who is supporting a "stay at home mom", raising kids... It has been found that they are the hardest workers, and most prolific sales persons you can get. (thats an aside)
Now you state this:
"What you (and most conservatives) are really upset about is divorce and out-of-wedlock pregnancies. Of course, this amendment does nothing to solve either of those problems."
No, actually what "upsets me" are people who favor all sorts of "gun control", that is my issue, along with taxes.
I do not think Govt. can "legislate away" divorce or abortion. They can do best on trying to "effect" these behaviors through the tax code.
Look, I know proponents of "same sex marriage" are mad at us Conservatives, who always "Preach Liberty" too, but in the end I personally have to reflect upon "What is best for the defense of our Nation". Promoting the domestic birth rate, and having children raised within the traditional "mother & father" model just seems to me as a "no brainer".