How is it not more important than anything else? The continuation of the species is what we are designed to do at a fundamental level. any inhibition of that fundamental human trait is either:
A) Flawed or defective, or
B) Silly and ungrateful choices.
Baloney. Society prospers best when some reproduce and some do not. Lower birth rates lead to lower crime, less violence, and increased prosperity and life expectancy. That's a big part of the reason that life is better in Sweden and Japan than in Colombia and Pakistan.
The fact that we need to reproduce does not lead to a logical conclusion that all of need to reproduce as much as possible, any more than the fact that we need to eat means that we all need to eat as much as possible.
Hard for madhatter to get his Mormon blinders off.
Further evidence that LDS is a deeply troubling, retrogressive and harmful theology.
Are you conceding this country was founded on religious morals and freedoms?
Of course not; quite the opposite.
If so, Why would you even try to deliberately mis-interpret the constitution of the United States or try to change it's foundation?
I think you should memo in the Supreme Court, who have repeatedly, over decades, ruled that you're wrong.
Is it because you find religion to be obsolete? IF so, that is for another debate.
A girl can dream.
There are none that are efficient enough to promote cultural sustainability except the traditional family.
What form of traditional family are you referring to? Because there are many of them all over the world.
But they don't equally contribute to society. Without extra resources (because of their chosen behavior) they cannot contribute in the way that normal heterosexual couple can.
Well, sperm is hardly a scarce resource.
Everyone contributes differently, and all contributions are valuable to society. Or, as my mother used to say, it takes all kinds to make a world. We don't all have to be like you to make it work. In fact, it probably works better with fewer like you.
I am not telling them who they can or cannot love. I am merely stating, as i have always stated. that It is ridiculous to put in place provisions and special privileges based on behavioral attributes that are contrary to the reason married couples have special benefits.
And you have always been wrong, for two reasons. First, they're not special privileges, they're fundamental rights. Second, "the ability and willingness to procreate with each other as biological parents" is not the reason married couples have special benefits. If it were, we would exclude non-fertile, adoptive and childless heterosexual couples.
no sir, your argument was one dimensional. I provided an appropriate response. I already know that there are a lot of factors in how many resources it takes for a single human being to survive. However, families that live together have a much more efficient ratio of resources to living. People today are less likely to continue to live with parents until starting a family of their own because Americans (especially) have a sense of entitlement to space. we have caused ourselves to be inefficient at living in the world because we have moved so far away from the traditional family model since becoming an industrial society.
Yes, families are good, including gay families. No, the patriarchal model is not the best or only model by a long shot. But feel free to supply some data to the contrary.
ever more... and more... and more...
