• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arkansas, Mississippi overturn gay marriage bans

Oh and probability of something wasn't your argument. You claimed heterosexual intercourse resulted in babies, and that is why they get married. It fails since the vast majority of the time, over 99.9%, opposite sex couples have sex that does not result in babies. Around 15% of opposite sex! married couples don't have children due to their having sex.

Don't be silly.
 
Don't be silly.

Silly about what? The facts? People in the US ages 20-49 have sex an average of about 11 billion times per year, yet there were only about 3,952,841 births in 2012. So without including teenagers at all, even though some of those births came from them, that puts sex at resulting in a birth at about 0.36%. So not quite 99.9%, but definitely 99.6%. Even if you added another million to account for pregnancies rather than births, it still doesn't result more than 0.46% of the time, putting it at 99.5%. And I didn't even add in old people, who do have sex or teenagers. Plus, this also doesn't take into account something like IVF or sperm donation leading to a pregnancy.

The Kinsey Institute - Sexuality Information Links - FAQ [Related Resources]

Age and Sex Composition in the United States: 2012 - People and Households - U.S. Census Bureau

FastStats - Births and Natality
 
OP title inaccurate, the states did not overturn their bans, that was a federal court in both cases.
 
OP title inaccurate, the states did not overturn their bans, that was a federal court in both cases.

This is true, I didnt even notice, good catch
no surprise FOX screwed up the, nobody screws up more than FOX and MSNBC they are the Micheal Jordan and Kobe Bryant of bias, "mistakes" and dishonesty
 
Silly about what? The facts? People in the US ages 20-49 have sex an average of about 11 billion times per year, yet there were only about 3,952,841 births in 2012. So without including teenagers at all, even though some of those births came from them, that puts sex at resulting in a birth at about 0.36%. So not quite 99.9%, but definitely 99.6%. Even if you added another million to account for pregnancies rather than births, it still doesn't result more than 0.46% of the time, putting it at 99.5%. And I didn't even add in old people, who do have sex or teenagers. Plus, this also doesn't take into account something like IVF or sperm donation leading to a pregnancy.

The Kinsey Institute - Sexuality Information Links - FAQ [Related Resources]

Age and Sex Composition in the United States: 2012 - People and Households - U.S. Census Bureau

FastStats - Births and Natality

Only someone with an agenda would argue in such a selective way. That is what I meant about not being silly. Your arguments only make it clear, that matrimony has widely lost its prime function as a social instrument and public good. So put it, where it belongs and get government out of the matter. Or are you afraid to lose the spousal bonifications that single taxpayers are probably paying you. Or are you one of the ones acting economically irrational and paying more than you would as singles?
 
Only someone with an agenda would argue in such a selective way. That is what I meant about not being silly. Your arguments only make it clear, that matrimony has widely lost its prime function as a social instrument and public good. So put it, where it belongs and get government out of the matter. Or are you afraid to lose the spousal bonifications that single taxpayers are probably paying you. Or are you one of the ones acting economically irrational and paying more than you would as singles?

You only care about government involvement in marriage because gays are getting it. All the fake ass "pro family and traditional marriage" crap is going away and the true anti gay animus is coming to the surface.
 
Only someone with an agenda would argue in such a selective way. That is what I meant about not being silly. Your arguments only make it clear, that matrimony has widely lost its prime function as a social instrument and public good. So put it, where it belongs and get government out of the matter. Or are you afraid to lose the spousal bonifications that single taxpayers are probably paying you. Or are you one of the ones acting economically irrational and paying more than you would as singles?

Actually marriage has simply changed function with changes in society, since it has never had the same prime function for every couple who has ever been married. There is a reason for the phrase "merger the old fashion way" referring to when two companies end up merging because the owners' children get married.

I'm not willing to give up my protections nor bankrupt the government or cause people major legal battles and costs just because you and a few others don't want to share.
 
You only care about government involvement in marriage because gays are getting it. All the fake ass "pro family and traditional marriage" crap is going away and the true anti gay animus is coming to the surface.

Untrue. But the situation throws up the question for debate and the natural thing to do with a dysfunctional government activity is to get rid of it.
 
Actually marriage has simply changed function with changes in society, since it has never had the same prime function for every couple who has ever been married. There is a reason for the phrase "merger the old fashion way" referring to when two companies end up merging because the owners' children get married.

I'm not willing to give up my protections nor bankrupt the government or cause people major legal battles and costs just because you and a few others don't want to share.

And the new function is a private good and no a public good. Like most of the school system it has been overtaken by developments and is no longer a legitimate activity for government..
 
And the new function is a private good and no a public good. Like most of the school system it has been overtaken by developments and is no longer a legitimate activity for government..

Not true. The public benefits, as it has for quite some time, from all marriages and is involved in protecting people and recognition of legal kinship, which is what marriage establishes. Should we do away with birth certificates as well?
 
Untrue. But the situation throws up the question for debate and the natural thing to do with a dysfunctional government activity is to get rid of it.

Nope. Never was a concern for anyone on this forum until gays started getting marriage. Your true agenda is transparent.
 
Yet in Mississippi, gay sex is illegal!


ITS A TRAP!
 
Lol, of course

Just checking, since there are people who wish to completely deny the Lawrence decision and it's affect on sodomy laws. Didn't think you were one of them, but sometimes my brain gets jumbled.
 
Back
Top Bottom