tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6418321.post8952343057258267816..comments2008-06-18T08:36:21.297-05:00Daniel Newbyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16447547303783134514noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6418321.post-87248120562348987252008-06-18T08:36:00.000-05:002008-06-18T08:36:00.000-05:00Hold on. I'm not against homosexuals or homosexual households. I am just opposed to meddling in child rearing for venal political ends. The U.S. fertility rate is a wonder of the developed world, in stark contrast to the demographic collapse other developed countries are facing.<BR/><BR/>Nobody knows exactly why that is, or how the marriage laws play into it, but somehow the system delivers good results. Throwing that away just to pacify a political faction strikes me as foolish.<BR/><BR/>Gay marriage will also have unexpected consequences. For example, if there are any income tax benefits to marriage, gay marriage means we will have brokers who match people anonymously and handle all the paperwork to create a tax shelter marriage. Alimony law will be turned inside out, because the "equal protection" clause of the Constitution would require that women be treated with total suspicion in heterosexual divorce, rather than the expedient favoritism now given.<BR/><BR/>Regarding infertile heterosexual couples, the biology is just too erratic to make sane laws. So you have to compromise and allow it so society can get the (presumed) benefits from marriage laws, without being tangled in litigation.<BR/><BR/>"For thousands of years gays and blacks and whites couldn't marry, why destroy tradition now?"<BR/><BR/>No, for thousands of years all sorts of arrangements have been tried: miscegenation of all degrees and types, pederasty, free love communes, polygyny, nuclear families, paired couples with communal child rearing. You name it, it has been tried, and the results recorded.<BR/><BR/>The evidence shows that racial mixing is usually neutral to good (hybrid vigor), despite all the scary racist PR. The evidence shows that most sexual arrangements do not result in a stable society. E.g., polygynous societies tend to explode within a generation or two, except for the nobility of a feudal society. For individualistic capitalism, only the heterosexual nuclear family seems to result in a stable society. (For people who are willing to compromise on individualism, the Israeli kibbutzim seem reasonably robust.)Daniel Newbyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16447547303783134514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6418321.post-26554352094956856392008-06-18T02:58:00.000-05:002008-06-18T02:58:00.000-05:00Sorry to post twice but two other things:<BR/><BR/>1. Should infertile couples not be allowed to marry?<BR/><BR/>2. How could someone with a blog called "Starlight Temple" be against gay marriage?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6418321.post-34417067774718238502008-06-18T02:51:00.000-05:002008-06-18T02:51:00.000-05:00I agree. For that matter, what the hell were they thinking allowing interracial marriage? I can't believe our tax dollars are being used to subsidize such degenerate behavior as a white person marrying a black person. I mean, if a white person wants to choose to be attracted to blacks, that's their prerogative, but the courts don't have the right to push their activist ideas on us. God, it's like our government is set up to prevent judges from being influenced by populist opinion. For thousands of years gays and blacks and whites couldn't marry, why destroy tradition now?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com