4 ms·
What about modern medical technology? how many people of the 3,978,497 of people born in US in year 2015 were born out of this modern technology ? Now if we ext
by sremani 10y ago
What about modern medical technology? how many people of the 3,978,497 of people born in US in year 2015 were born out of this modern technology ? Now if we extend that to world, that is hundreds of millions of babies.
My comment was neutral about gay marriage. I was trying to tie the relationship between demographics and Nation-States and why hetero-sex is mostly overlook but important ingredient.
May be in the future each of us get to have clone armies and designer babies, I do not know. But to pretend Sexuality and its outcomes have no bearing in Life and Destiny of a Nation to me is laughable.
- mikeash 10y agoDid you miss the middle part of my reply? The only technology you fundamentally need is enough alcohol for the involved parties to have sex against their preference.
- sremani 10y agoNo, apparently you need to read and understand my first post, esp. taking off those "ideological" glasses.
- randomdata 10y agoHow does raping someone – at least I take that to be what you mean by drugging someone into having sex against their preference – relate to a subsidy designed to incentivize couples to willingly have (and care for) children?
- mikeash 10y agoUh.... "Against their preference" does not mean "against their will." I'm referring to gay people consensually having heterosexual sex in order to procreate.
- randomdata 10y agoThanks for the clarification. Now, if they are already willing to do it without government incentive, what does expanding the subsidy to include them add? To be clear, I'm not sure it is an effective subsidy to begin with, but that's a moot point as far as this discussion goes.
- mikeash 10y agoIt seems to make them happy.
- randomdata 10y agoWell sure, who doesn't like getting subsidies? That doesn't mean it is effective for a government to invent subsidies for everyone. There has to be a desired outcome, even if in the real world it falls short or brings many unintended consequences. And I think there are lots of good reasons to eliminate this subsidy entirely, but that's a whole other discussion.
- mikeash 10y agoWhat's the goal? If it's to promote having children, then you should just subsidize having children. If for some reason you really want to subsidize children through marriage, then you should stop subsidizing marriages involving people who can't or won't have children. If there's some perceived benefit in legal recognition of a romantic union, then there's no reason to exclude same-sex unions. Basically, there are a few consistent positions: 1. Children are important. Outcome: either incentivize children, or incentivize fertile couples. 2. Romantic unions are important. Outcome: legally recognize all of them, including same-sex couples. 3. Freedom and small government is important. Outcome: stop recognizing marriage and let people handle it privately. 4. Religion is important. Outcome: legally recognize marriage under something like the rules of your religion. We can argue for and against the merits of these individual possibilities, but what I can't understand is when someone uses an argument for #1 (as the other commenter here is) or #2 (as the site being discussed is) but somehow ends up with the outcome from #4.
- ionised 10y agoWhy are you repeatedly capitalising those three words (Life, Destiny and Nation)?