I’m curious, then. What is your argument against adoption by gay couples?
And whether same sex marriage will become a reality is something to be seen. The Grand Justices decided on the basis of the interpretation of the constitution - a constitution can be amended. That has happened before in Taiwan. Even without a constitutional amendment taxation laws can be changed to achieve a socially desirable outcome.
Do you honestly believe they will amend the constitution just for that, before the two year grace period expires?
Some people did. I’ll post the source if I come across it again.
The only person suggesting that is you!
You’re not thinking three dimensionally. “Unmarried people are inherently incapable of procreation, because parthenogenesisdoes not occur in humans.” See what I mean? [Edit: see below.]
Homosexuals have been reproducing for as long as they have existed, one way or another. With modern technology, it’s easier than ever before. Whether that’s a good thing or not is a separate question. My point is that your claim of an inherent inability to reproduce is objectively false.
Are you saying the population should never be allowed to decrease, or are you saying the population should never even be allowed to remain static (i.e. must always increase)? What’s your endgame?
Should that cover onanism and religious celibacy as well? What length of time should a married woman baby factory be allowed to spend recovery from her previous pregnancy before she’s sent “back to work” i.e. back to gestation? After how many babies should a woman be excused from further procreation (whether for her own safety or because of deteriorating womb quality)? What should be the higher priority: producing as many babies as possible or producing the healthiest babies possible? Should twins, triplets etc. be encouraged? Even if it means people will take fertility drugs with undesirable side effects? Should post-menopausal women be permitted to engage in non-procreative activities, or should they be disposed of in an orderly manner?
So many questions…
Edit:
Damn! You humans get up to all kinds of mischief when we’re not looking!
Another theory is that humans evolved to expect more than two parents, i.e. at least one other family member such as a grandparent is expected to survive long enough to assist in raising the children. (I don’t have time to find the link now, sorry.)
Most in the past probably did it under social pressure. However, it’s proven the biological genes for homosexuality is in all of us. Homosexuals don’t need to reproduce themselves to pass down homosexuality. Whether someone turns out to be a homosexual is determined by the environment of the mother’s womb, which is in term determined by the conditions and stress the mother was experiencing.
In stead of a stupid tax on “non-procreation”, there should simply be incentives and benefits for taking care of children. It’s the taking care part that’s expensive and time/life consuming. Whether it’s a pair of heterosexuals or homosexuals taking care of the child is irrelevant. The point is that there are people willing to invest their lives into lovingly taking care of and raising children.
There are less children these days not because people are incapable of having them or they don’t want to engage in sexual activities. It’s because anyone capable of logic and a little math would figure out it is incredibly difficult to offer the best to their child in a stable and reliable manner for over 20 years in the current society. Most people are barely taking care of themselves.
If there are capable homosexual couples willing to take care of the children for some of the less logical and math challenged people, why are we stopping them? We should encourage them.
We’re more interested in what’s beneficial for the kid. What’s produced by evolution isn’t necessarily good.
The optimal situation is to have both a mother and a father figure. Obama said his daughters always call his bluff whenever he issues an ultimatum, because they think he’s a wimp. He attributed it to not having a father figure growing up.
Other configurations can definitely work, it’s just harder.
An Italian study showed that homosexuals tend to have more fertile relatives to compensate. Straight women who carry this gene tend to be more sexual too.
Many marriages in Taiwan are quasi-arranged: kids who get to their thirties without meeting anyone are often introduced to their parents’ friends children and encouraged to get it on, and as many are reluctant to go against their parents wishes, they just go along with it as it’s the path of least resistance. Whereas those who wish to enter into a gay marriage will be doing out of true affection for their partners. I would say in many cases the latter would make better parents.
That doesn’t seem to square with the evidence. Arranged marriages succeed at a higher rate (that’s well-known), and more stable marriages result in better children, as you can see from the link.
If what you are saying is a homosexual is better off in a homosexual marriage than a homosexual socially pressured into a heterosexual marriage (when he or she is homosexual), then you are correct. The results of the latter are quite disastrous, and can be disastrous for the kid.
When you think about it, why would a two-adult household be better than a household with more adults? There’s always going to be the risk that a parent will die while the children are still young, so the more adults there are, the less chance the kids have of growing up with inadequate parenting. Also, humans tended to have more children for most of history, and two parents can only do so much.
The nuclear family is what it sounds like – a product of modern times.
OK, so what implications does that hold for policy? How would be implement multiple-parent homes? Would it be like Confucius suggested, have three generations living together?
Is a policy to subsidize stable families effective to increase happy kids? It may be effective to make lower the risk of kids already in low risk conditions.
multiple-adult home and multiple-parent home are different. Traditionally, big households with multiple generations/families are more common in Asia than in Westen. I think tax policy can encourage multiple-family households.
It’s a complex issue that requires flexible policies.
How can family policies be flexible? Take Austria for example: they created domestic partnerships as a kind of “marriage lite” for same sex couples; opposite sex couples sued because they wanted to have that option too. And why not?
The one-size-fits-all paradigm doesn’t work for labor, and it doesn’t really work for marriage/family either, despite Hsinhai’s apparent wish for everyone (of pure Chinese blood) to walk the One True Path of Endless Population Growth.
