"Marriage of same sex couples is lawful"

[Nym]

It puzzles me immensely why people refer either to religion or to bigotry in connection with this issue. There is no connection with either.
The simple fact is that if same sex partnerships became widespread in every country of the world, then the birth rate would begin dropping rather drastically (I assume people realize that same sex couples cannot procreate). This sharp reduction in the birth rate would result in a gradual decrease in the world's population which would become more noticeable with each successive decade until a century or so from now, there would be very few human beings left on the planet.
The resistance to same sex partnerships becoming a routine and socially acceptable part of life is based on a concern for the future of the human race with absolutely no reference to The Bible, The Koran or any other religious book or teaching.

I'm sorry, wha?

Just so many things going on there to be highly critical of that I'll just stick with what's above, really, what?

 

[90019]

It puzzles me immensely why people refer either to religion or to bigotry in connection with this issue. There is no connection with either.
The simple fact is that if same sex partnerships became widespread in every country of the world, then the birth rate would begin dropping rather drastically (I assume people realize that same sex couples cannot procreate). This sharp reduction in the birth rate would result in a gradual decrease in the world's population which would become more noticeable with each successive decade until a century or so from now, there would be very few human beings left on the planet.
The resistance to same sex partnerships becoming a routine and socially acceptable part of life is based on a concern for the future of the human race with absolutely no reference to The Bible, The Koran or any other religious book or teaching.

You do realise that there isn't a set number of married couples, and that homosexual couples wouldn't be replacing heterosexual ones.

I'm curious to know how you've come to the conclusion that allowing gay people to marry will reduce birth rate? It's not like it's going to have much, if any, of an effect on the number of couples of each type, or whether they'll choose to procreate or not.


I'll be blunt - that is by quite some way the stupidest post I've come across on these forums in a long time. If you genuinely believe all that to be true, it's actually slightly worrying.

 

[bb21]

The simple fact is that if same sex partnerships became widespread in every country of the world, then the birth rate would begin dropping rather drastically (I assume people realize that same sex couples cannot procreate). This sharp reduction in the birth rate would result in a gradual decrease in the world's population which would become more noticeable with each successive decade until a century or so from now, there would be very few human beings left on the planet.
The resistance to same sex partnerships becoming a routine and socially acceptable part of life is based on a concern for the future of the human race with absolutely no reference to The Bible, The Koran or any other religious book or teaching.

Horror! Gay marriage sucks straights into deviant life style. :roll:

So same sex partnerships are not socially acceptable? What about civil partnerships?

Your comments made me chuckle.

 

[Lewisham2221]

Yes, because legalising gay marriage will suddenly put an end to all heterosexual relationships :roll:

I'm astonished that somebody could actually post such nonsense!

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I don't see how them being able to marry would affect the birth rate. Surely they wouldn't have kids if they couldn't marry either? Unless you are implying that gay marriage will somehow encourage homosexuality, which would lead to a declining birth rate?

 

[maniacmartin]

To answer an earlier question, it is very likely that Civil Partnerships will not be opened up to opposite-sex couples. Here is an extract of the guidance given to MPs on the Bill:

[...]
1.8 Should civil partnerships be an option for opposite sex couples?
[...]
The Government has stated that it has not identified any need to open up civil partnerships to opposite sex couples.[33] It has stated that responses to the consultation on equal marriage (discussed below) had not made clear what detriment opposite sex couples suffered by not having access to civil partnerships:

7.8 When civil partnerships were introduced in 2005, they were created to allow equivalent access to rights, responsibilities and protections for same-sex couples to those afforded by marriage. They were not intended or designed as an alternative to marriage. Therefore, we do not believe that they should now be seen as an alternative to marriage for opposite sex couples

7.9 Opposite sex couples currently have access to marriage, either via a civil or religious ceremony, which is both legally and socially recognised. We understand that not all opposite sex couples wish to marry, but that decision is theirs to make and they have the option to do so if they wish.[34]

The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill would not enable opposite sex couples to register a civil partnership.

---
[33] Government Equalities Office, Equal civil marriage: a consultation, 15 March 2012, p12
[34] HM Government, Equal Marriage: The Government's response, December 2012, p26

 

[MidnightFlyer]

This sharp reduction in the birth rate would result in a gradual decrease in the world's population which would become more noticeable with each successive decade until a century or so from now, there would be very few human beings left on the planet.

:roll: Something does tell me however that someone at some point may notice if we suddenly lost millions from population figures. Surely equal marriage isn't going to lead to a huge decline, if any?! Could you provide some evidence to perhaps support your claim, i.e. the population figures from a country that allows equal marriage from both before and after the allowance? Also, using your logic, there will, I am sure, always be countries in the world (even states in the US!) where allowing two men or two women to marry will never be allowed, surely this would compensate (for want of a better word) for the apparent population decline in places like Britain?

 

[maniacmartin]

I am sure, always be countries in the world (even states in the US!) where allowing two men or two women to marry will never be allowed, surely this would compensate (for want of a better word) for the apparent population decline in places like Britain?

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

I severely doubt that people's sexuality and choices of when to procreate are based on whether same-sex marriage is legal. Your reply to Harlesden's equally flawed post implies to me that straight people will have same-sex marriages and cease to procreate, once it becomes legal. Why will straight people reduce their procreation if gay people can marry?

Edit: Since I made the reply above, MattE2010's post has since been edited to emphasis that it is sarcasm

 

[yorksrob]

It puzzles me immensely why people refer either to religion or to bigotry in connection with this issue. There is no connection with either.
The simple fact is that if same sex partnerships became widespread in every country of the world, then the birth rate would begin dropping rather drastically (I assume people realize that same sex couples cannot procreate). This sharp reduction in the birth rate would result in a gradual decrease in the world's population which would become more noticeable with each successive decade until a century or so from now, there would be very few human beings left on the planet.
The resistance to same sex partnerships becoming a routine and socially acceptable part of life is based on a concern for the future of the human race with absolutely no reference to The Bible, The Koran or any other religious book or teaching.

A gradual decrease in the worlds population would probably be a good thing overall.

Even if same sex partnerships did become widespread in every country of the world, it's highly unlikely that everyone would suddenly turn homosexual.

For some reason, whatever happens, a majority of blokes just seem to prefer sleeping with women. (God knows why, but whatever lights their candle )

 

[90019]

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

I severely doubt that people's sexuality and choices of when to procreate are based on whether same-sex marriage is legal. Your reply Harlesden's equally flawed post implies to me that straight people will have same-sex marriages and cease to procreate, once it becomes legal. Why will straight people reduce their procreation if gay people can marry?

Don't you know that legalising gay marriage is actually a secret plot to turn everyone gay!

 

[Manchester77]

Gay marriage has NOTHING to do with population growth. At the minute we have lots of economically active thanks to baby booms in the 40s and 60s. Due to recessions and cost of living rising people have been having more children and this trend is shown on population pyramids. This is normal for an MEDC like us because we are an industrialised country which doesn't need the massively high birth rates we see in LEDCs and NICs because of much better health care. The issue will come when the current economically active become old dependants. With fewer children becoming econamically active the issue will be that there will be more old dependants than economically active.

In addition same sex couples have to option of a surrogate mother, adoption, sperm donars and other alternatives
None of this what so ever has anything to do with gay marriage so those who are saying gay marriage will affect birth rates I laugh in your face because its ridiculous. You clearly don't know your population geography so don't say something that isn't true thank you kindly to you thank you please.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

In addition same sex couples have to option of a surrogate mother, adoption, sperm doners and other alternatives. None of this what so ever has anything to do with gay marriage so those who are saying gay marriage will affect birth rates I laugh in your face because its ridiculous. You clearly don't know your population geography so don't say something that isn't true thank you kindly to you thank you please.

I was listening to a discussion on Radio 4 yesterday, which shows how a generational change can even affect the most traditional conservative religious European countries. As it was stated in the programme, who would ever have imagined a generation ago that Italy would now be currently experiencing the lowest birth-rate in Europe at present.

 

[Johnuk123]

To answer an earlier question, it is very likely that Civil Partnerships will not be opened up to opposite-sex couples.

Ah so all this talk of equality is nothing of the sort.

 

[Clip]

It puzzles me immensely why people refer either to religion or to bigotry in connection with this issue. There is no connection with either.
The simple fact is that if same sex partnerships became widespread in every country of the world, then the birth rate would begin dropping rather drastically (I assume people realize that same sex couples cannot procreate). This sharp reduction in the birth rate would result in a gradual decrease in the world's population which would become more noticeable with each successive decade until a century or so from now, there would be very few human beings left on the planet.The resistance to same sex partnerships becoming a routine and socially acceptable part of life is based on a concern for the future of the human race with absolutely no reference to The Bible, The Koran or any other religious book or teaching.

Maybe not - but that does not preclude them from having a baby by other means does it?


Dont mean to be rude but you are properly mental and have not thought this through at all have you.

What about all the hetero couples and single people who dont want kids? In fact why am I carrying on...

 

[Oswyntail]

.....Dont mean to be rude but you are properly mental and have not thought this through at all have you........

I'd hate to hear from you when you did mean to be rude, then!
Actually, I thought he was being heavily sarcastic to ridicule the viewpoint of the more extreme opponents.

 

[starrymarkb]

Ah so all this talk of equality is nothing of the sort.

I believe new Civil Partnerships wouldn't be made, instead marriages would replace them.. Existing CPs can be upgraded through a Registrar

 

[Zoe]

I believe new Civil Partnerships wouldn't be made, instead marriages would replace them.. Existing CPs can be upgraded through a Registrar

That does not seem to be the case.http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn05882.pdf

The Government intends to retain civil partnerships for same-sex couples, including
continuing to allow civil partnerships on religious premises, but will not make them available
to opposite-sex couples. Marriages between same-sex couples formed abroad would be
recognised as marriages; same-sex civil unions (that are not marriages) would be recognised
as civil partnerships in the UK.

There would be a process by which existing civil partnerships might be converted into civil
59
marriages, but there would be no obligation to convert. The process would not be time
limited.

 

[Mojo]

I'm not sure what the purpose of a Civil Partnership is over a Civil Marriage other than the government of the day was scared of introducing proper equal marriage (not that I blame them).

 

[LE Greys]

I believe new Civil Partnerships wouldn't be made, instead marriages would replace them.. Existing CPs can be upgraded through a Registrar

That does not seem to be the case.http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn05882.pdf

Originally Posted by Commons Library
The Government intends to retain civil partnerships for same-sex couples, including continuing to allow civil partnerships on religious premises, but will not make them available to opposite-sex couples. Marriages between same-sex couples formed abroad would be recognised as marriages; same-sex civil unions (that are not marriages) would be recognised as civil partnerships in the UK.

There would be a process by which existing civil partnerships might be converted into civil 59 marriages, but there would be no obligation to convert. The process would not be time limited.

Sounds like a bit of a mess, TBH. While it's somewhat fairer than before, it's still not quite equal for everyone. It also makes me wonder how long civil partnerships can last, because I can't really see that many people taking it up as an option when they can get married. However, I reckon these 'conversion/upgrade' ceremonies will be quite common.

 

[Clip]

I'd hate to hear from you when you did mean to be rude, then!
Actually, I thought he was being heavily sarcastic to ridicule the viewpoint of the more extreme opponents.

You wouldnt , believe me..

Very hard to come across if they were intending it that way without italics or even some smilies to hint at it.

 

[PHILIPE]

If nothing else, David Cameron has kept a promise.