Quote:
Would there be more or fewer children in orphanages if more heterosexual couples married prior to having children?
There would be at least as many, and probably more. The ones we have now don't simply vanish when the next regressively smaller crop, made regressively smaller by whatever the hell marriage incentive principle you are espousing arrives handed down by congress, you twit. You need to fix a problem of orphans, who
are already born and
already in non-ideal living. You do not write off things that other people failed to prevent and say, "we'll try harder next time guys, promise, trust us, we're just going to make sure to really encourage marriage this time, you'll see!" And then
nothing changes.
There's nothing wrong with combining preventative and curative care. You can't prevent
everything, and even if you can, you often wont, or mayn't be able to.
Your entire model is totally fraudulent and I hope it's intellectually dishonest because the contrary would imply that you are a fairly non-sympathetic person, which is to say, barely one at all.
Besides the point, let's say I want to grant you your fantastical ideal of a marriage system in which no unwed mothers birthed, and no couples divorced. Aside from my own ethical condemnation of a system which would consider humans in relation to one another purely for their potential monetary contribution to sosciety, it's still not going to eliminate the orphans who have already slipped through the cracks,
your cracks, from the republican parties' ridiculous vilification of sex as a condemnation of evil, ignoring the real "cause" of orphans: people get knocked up because condoms are evil and then they are excluded entirely from any possible redemption in contrast to those who did it
right according purely to the ethic of some quite embedded protestantism in the Governmental structure.
And you fall for this hook, line, and sinker, every damn time. You arrive at your own conclusions of why marriage should be exclusive in an economic model, but no one whom I have ever talked to in my entire life has heard of that argument. Some can't even understand it when I explain it to them, because the reason that they are against homosexual marriage is because
it is a sin.
I believe that you are not using the same reasoning as the rest of your Party, and I can sympathize, of having a point getting eventually amalgamized into the frothing mass of the republican ideal, because I too, have my own beliefs which combine into a part of the Liberal ideal and to a lesser extent, the democratic ideal, but I realize that no one really cares what I have to say according to that ideal. You seem to think as if you have some power, some ear on the going ons of the minds of the republican ideal, and you do not.