One big happy family

October 7, 2002 7:24 AM

One big happy family Ottawa granted permission for three wives of a polygamist to stay in Canada permanently and an immigration official has warned that several more applications from polygamists' wives are likely on the way, according to internal government documents obtained by The Globe and Mail. The report says the women filled in "housewife" as their occupation on their applications for immigration. They stated they would receive financial assistance from Mr. Blackmore. Under marriage information, they wrote "not available."
posted by orange swan (39 comments total)

one woman is enough for any man.
posted by johnnyboy at 8:27 AM on October 7, 2002

"Consensual crimes are absurd in a free society." ~Peter Williams
posted by goethean at 8:42 AM on October 7, 2002

Consensual? I don't think so. The above article leaves out key context: the age of the brides, who can be as young as 13 when they're married off to uncles, step-fathers and the like. Read this week's cover story in the Phoenix New Times, goethean; it accuses AZ Attorney General Janet Napolitano of covering up incest, rape, molestation, welfare fraud, "horrifying living conditions" and more in Colorado City.

Women who've managed to leave, including one who says she was confined to one room of a house for three years after running away, paint a terrifying picture of a heavily armed, closed-off fundamentalist society ruled through routine beatings and rapes of young teenagers. Hardly consensual.

The sect allegedly trades teenage girls between its communes in AZ and Bountiful. British Columbia has become something of a polygamist haven:
In 1992, B.C. refused to prosecute two polygamists from Bountiful, declaring the Criminal Code section outlawing polygamy unconstitutional.

Tons more info about this polygamist sect, now in a three-way power struggle after the death of the founder.

Helpthechildbrides.com
posted by mediareport at 8:56 AM on October 7, 2002

But kidnapping, rape, and welfare fraud are already crimes. I don't see why polygamy should be also.
posted by goethean at 9:04 AM on October 7, 2002

I'm with goethean on this, and have read that book (which is excellent, very much recommended). If a guy follows the statutory laws and doesn't, you know, kidnap or rape anyone, the more the merrier, I say.

Anyone ever read Heinlein's Friday. In it he posits a multiple spouse family style that makes a great deal of sense, in that (a) if you assume that individuals specialize a great deal, skill wise, you could (b) build a family that would be large and/or diverse enough to maximize necessary skills, as well as (c) pooling capital (financial and otherwise) for better economies of scale. Haldeman posits similar things in his "Worlds" books (he calls them "line" and "Cluster" families).

To me, it seems far more natural to humans than monogamy, and need not necessarily have sexual overtones/aspects.
posted by UncleFes at 9:22 AM on October 7, 2002

Bountiful, BC, is an embarassment and a crime. Our government and police ignore the abuse that's going on, and look the other way at the accusations of murder.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:22 AM on October 7, 2002

Why not?

I mean, in Canada, we're destroying the entire notion of Marriage (which to me, and so many others, is the union of a man and woman to have children which they can bring up in a family that is bound by certain bonds to stick together) by allowing homosexuals full Marriage priveledges under the law, so why the hell not go all the way?

And, since I'm 100% sure I'll be called this, I'm no homophobe. I just think Marriage should be reserved for people that can/could have participated in naturally concieving a child, because, IMHO, that's what Marriage is all about. Running a family.

And if you don't plan to have kids, don't get married, straight or not. It's a big waste for everyone involved.
posted by shepd at 9:24 AM on October 7, 2002

I have no problem with the idea of polyamory between consenting adults and think the state should get out of the marriage business, except in setting age limits for entering that kind of contract. But to make your general point, you overlooked some important specifics of the case at hand. The article completely overlooks them, which was kind of shocking. Whether or not consent is possible among teenage girls in a fundamentalist, male-dominated commune is the important question for me here.
posted by mediareport at 9:24 AM on October 7, 2002

shepd, even if we accept the premise that marriage is "all about" having children, your argument against gay marriage falls on its face, like so: If straight couples can get married and adopt, gay couples should be allowed to get married and adopt.

By your own logic, gay marriage should be just legal as straight marriage, so long as the goal is kids. Right? Thanks for the support.

Btw, search for "gay marriage" in the archives and you'll find detailed discussions of this issue at MeFi, if you want more.
posted by mediareport at 9:32 AM on October 7, 2002

Do you seriously think Shepd would possibly "want more"? He has obviously closed his mind in the most narrow and offensive possible way.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:38 AM on October 7, 2002

...in Canada, we're destroying the entire notion of Marriage (which to me, and so many others, is the union of a man and woman to have children which they can bring up in a family that is bound by certain bonds to stick together) by allowing homosexuals full Marriage priveledges under the law...

What a load of crap. To save the sanctity of marriage do we also have to keep sterile couples from marrying? Or do only homosexuals 'destroy the notion of marriage'? Why is that?

It's unfortunate to know that Canada has right-wing ignorance just like the US.
posted by goethean at 9:45 AM on October 7, 2002

one woman is enough for any man.

I'd like to meet this woman.
posted by stbalbach at 9:45 AM on October 7, 2002

shepd: I'd appreciate it if you'd answer mediareport; I've always wanted to ask one of those "marriage is about kids" people if that means straight couples who can't have them shouldn't be allowed to marry, and here's my chance to find out.
posted by languagehat at 10:01 AM on October 7, 2002

For a long time I've felt that government should just get totally out of the marriage business altogether and instead let any 2 people (friends, gays, mother/adult daughter etc.) link themselves legally as "domestic partners" for legal reasons.
posted by gspira at 10:16 AM on October 7, 2002

Marriage should be reserved for people that can/could have participated in naturally conceiving a child.

My wife and I got married in June of this year. I am 35, she is 43, we have no plans of having any children. Yet, we chose to get married as we plan on being together for a long time enjoying each others company.

This fallacy that children somehow "complete" the relationship is ridiciulous.

I think that too many people are having children. Childbirth should not be some kind of inherent right. Too many people that are incapable of raising children are having them. Instead of making me get a cheesy drivers license, they should make people get parenting licenses.

If the women in question want to actually be with one man and share him, and he/they can afford this lifestyle they have chosen, then I say fine. Have a ball. Just don't ask me to pay for your children.

My brothers wife is pregnant again. They have 2 sons, 8 and 10, great kids. I am a great uncle too (so say they). So I fulfill my desire to see children grow up that way, and I probably get to retire earlier too ;-)

Gays having kids..... I thin when you first hear it, there is a recoild reaction. Then you stop and think about all the other people that have kids that have no right to actually be raising them. Trailer parks spring to mind. Kids living in filth and squalor, but its ok, there parents aren't gay. Kind of see where that is going shep?
posted by a3matrix at 10:43 AM on October 7, 2002

Only wives who sweetly comply will be "lifted up" to the "celestial kingdom" by their husbands

Pathetic.
posted by a3matrix at 10:47 AM on October 7, 2002

Parenting licenses
I think Scott Adams had a similar idea a while back in one of the Dilbert books. Sorry, forget which one.
And I'm ignorant, I know, but isn't marriage a Church institution? Church and State? Why should polygamy be outlawed (just because many polygamists supposedly rape and beat young wives)?
one woman is enough for any man.
Never. And tell that to Pharaoh's harem.
posted by ac at 10:52 AM on October 7, 2002

Sorry I'm late to the conversation folks -- busy with life. :-)

Okay, to answer some questions/concerns here:

Mediareport, I feel that while gay couples can adopt children, it is wrong of them to do so. Nature has intended children to be brought up by a straight couple, and, IMHO, Marriage should be an extension of the natural state of raising children. Yes, there is the argument that a child raised in a caring gay family is better off than a child raised in an abusive straight family, but in both cases I see it as wrong.

The next question I'll be asked is why, I'm sure, I think gays rearing children is wrong. I have a simple explanation for that:

Parents normally impress their set of values on children. While I don't think being gay is a wrong thing, it isn't in the interest of continuing society through procreation. This is most especially important today since most 1st world countries (where topics like this are in hot debate) have a declining population. To be quite honest, our countries need more straight people to continue to human race. Just my two cents, and again, I don't consider myself a homophobe -- I would never consider treating someone gay differently except in these unusual circumstances, and I would cry out strongly against anyone who would.

FFF, one has only closed their minds if they are unwilling to accept and understand that someone may have an alternative viewpoint on a serious issue like marriage.

goethan, to be ignorant is to ignore the issue, as I have seen you've done completely. And no, it isn't just homosexuals that destroy the sanctity of marriage -- anyone who is uninterested in pursuing a natural relationship which could bear a child has no business being married. This would include straight couples that simply want to spend their lives working. They have no business using the benefits marriage provides if they choose not to procreate.

gspira, you make a very good and valid point, and I agree with you on it.

a3matrix, I'm not interfering with your relationship. I have no notion that children complete a relationship. I do have a notion that children complete a marriage, and that marriage is an institute to help parents bring up children. It is an extra promise made by two people to stick through whatever they can for the sake of their children, IMHO. I wish you a pleasant relationship with your wife, but I think there should be a separate, non-marriage, set of vows that don't include any sort of special government recognization for couples who don't have kids. Don't take that personally, please, I don't mean it as such.

Anyways, that's my opinion, and I don't mind discussing it. However, I think its weak to call someone closeminded because they've made a personal decision that included a lot of soul searching.

Oh, and no, for those who think I might be a hard-line Christian/Catholic/Whatever, I'm not. I can assure you I'm not a very religious man.
posted by shepd at 3:00 PM on October 7, 2002

[Sterile people] have no business using the benefits marriage provides if they choose not to procreate.

It's not your decision that I give a shit about bothers me. But I find it profoundly offensive that you think it's your business to determine whether or who I marry and how many children I have. I just don't run across that many professing authoritarians these days.
posted by goethean at 3:56 PM on October 7, 2002

what happens when a couple marries with the intention of having children but find they can't, and also find they're not eligible to adopt... in your canada would they have to get divorced...?

regardless of your answer and based on all your previously stated opinions, it's a good thing canada isn't yours alone, and you can be sure that i and many millions more will be "standing on guard against thee".
posted by t r a c y at 4:01 PM on October 7, 2002

goetean, I didn't say I would prevent you from having children. I simply stated that I believe marriage is an institution for people who plan to raise children. I don't go around asking gay people if they have children. None of my business whatsoever.

That said, I would never take a child away from a gay couple -- that would be very harmful to the child. And while I would strongly disagree with it, if a gay couple were insistent on adopting children and were successful, that's fine too. But when you decide that marriage is made for something it isn't, that's when you begin to step on my toes, and that's when I get to voice my opinion.

[Now, aside from that]

And why does everyone have a hard time with polygamy? Seriously? I don't see anything any more wrong with it than I see things wrong with gays having children, and I would feel perfectly fine calling anyone who thinks a polygamists' alternative lifestyle in bearing children is bad a hypocrite if they felt a gay's alternative lifestyle in adpoting children is wrong.

Now, tracy, you make a good point. I don't have an answer to your question right now, and I'm not going to make one up off the cuff, except that I lean towards that marriage becoming something more like a common law marriage, but replacing relationship with marriage.

And Tracy, what makes this country so great is our ability to have differences like these and sort them out with our votes. And if you would prefer to vote for a party that would institute gay marriage, that's your choice. The power of freedom and democracy continues. And I only stand on guard for that, I don't stand on guard for someone's opinion. That would be wrong, offensive, and dictatorial.
posted by shepd at 4:09 PM on October 7, 2002

Nature has intended children to be brought up by a straight couple

Evidence, please? Because when I look at nature, I see an incredibly broad range of parenting strategies, some of which include, er, same-sex couples. Yes, that would be in this "nature" you claim to know so well.

This is a classic case, shepd, of you trying to force the world into mental boxes that make you feel comfortable. Guess what? The world is bigger and more interesting than our little mental boxes. Now, here's the part where you either 1) admit you were wrong when you claimed to know what "Nature has intended" or 2) come up with a good argument to support your odd claim of special knowledge about the "intent" behind evolution.

Free hint: you'll be wasting your time if you go for option 2.

IMHO, Marriage should be an extension of the natural state of raising children.

Heterosexual child-rearing is *not* the be-all and end-all of animal life in its "natural state." In many populations, only a small percentage of animals bother to breed or have children at all. In others, like dolphins, same-sex play - for pleasure, it seems - has been seen over and over again. Have you even bothered to look at the reality of animal sexuality and reproduction, shepd? It's really fascinating.
posted by mediareport at 4:43 PM on October 7, 2002

That would be wrong, offensive, and dictatorial.

Classic bit of hypocrisy there. You've been putting forth wrong-headed, offensive, dictatorial nonsense throughout this entire thread. No one has said you can't have your opinion - but in what parallel universe are politics and voting not saturated with opinion? - it was simply stated that there are millions of Canadians who will do what they can to make sure your opinion never becomes the law of the land.
posted by zarah at 4:45 PM on October 7, 2002

media, your link appears to be farked.
posted by goethean at 4:46 PM on October 7, 2002

tracy: "you can be sure that i and many millions more will be "standing on guard against thee"

I'm sorry, but if you don't find someone who says they will "stand on guard against thee" dictatorial, you can have your opinion, because I do find that offensive and dictatorial.

Zarah>You've been putting forth wrong-headed, offensive, dictatorial nonsense throughout this entire thread.

You can call me wrong-headed, fine. Your choice. You can call my opinion offense, fine. Your choice.

But when you suggest I'm dictating what you can/cannot do, I have to ask: What am I dictating?

One: I didn't say gay people can't have children, I simply said it was wrong. And that's my opinion.

Two: What the government does/doesn't support is my business as much as the next guys. Marriage is something that government supports with my money. If I think the government is spending my money irresponsibly, it's my business to say so.

Three: If you want to be gay and have kids you don't do it with my money. If you do, you will get flames from me.

zarah>it was simply stated that there are millions of Canadians who will do what they can to make sure your opinion never becomes the law of the land.

Nuh-uh. It was simply stated that someone would "stand on guard against me". Can't take it back now. Sorry.

mediareport, I stick to what I say. The human race would not exist if the majority of humans were gay. If you can prove otherwise, feel free to.

Now, other species can exist, and in fact can thrive on being gay. That's fine. But the fact is we are human. For humans to continue existing they must have straight sex, or, nowadays, a man and a woman may copulate by having their sperm/eggs mixed in a test tube. But in no circumstances whatever will a gay human couple be able to reproduce without outside intervention. Therefore, I conclude that for humans (which you and I would be a part of) it is not natural for a gay couple to produce children. I feel safe in saying that to anyone.

Or at least that's what my science books keep telling me.

>Have you even bothered to look at the reality of animal sexuality and reproduction, shepd? It's really fascinating.

I sure have. Heck, I remember my grade 7 science class where we learned that worms reproduce asexually.

But we aren't worms, or birds. We are humans. Gay humans can't procreate and therefore I state that a gay couple with children is scientifically un-natural.

>In others, like dolphins, same-sex play - for pleasure, it seems - has been seen over and over again.

There's the problem. People keep reading into this that I have a problem with what gay people are/do. Let me bold/italicize this (which I've already said before, but I'll add some clarification): If you are gay and want to have gay sex and/or want to do anything whatsoever that doesn't involve me or my money, you're welcome to it.

Please don't think I would stop a gay couple from pleasuring each other. That's none of my business whatsoever. What's my business (in the general sense, though I will make exceptions for human rights issues) starts and ends with me and my money.

Anyways, I want to apologize for dereailing this thread so much. It wasn't my intent. Maybe it would be a good time to go back on-topic.

goethean, the link is available via google cache.

I want to end this by saying that if I've offended people here, that wasn't my intent. If I've angered you, please calm down, I don't want people to walk about being angry at me. It's just my opinion, and at the time I didn't realize it would cause such a stir.

And tracy, don't take my quoting you that seriously. I'm only a bit offended by that quote and I've completely forgotten about caring about it now. OK?

Anyways, thanks for the discussion + HAND. :-)
posted by shepd at 5:11 PM on October 7, 2002

Media'a link just worked for me. Try again.

In retrospect, I'll agree with ShepD, but with a twist: given that marriage is already a travesty in most respects -- ie. "until death do us part" being a blatant lie for most couples, wrt the divorce rate -- I propose that "marriage" be opened to any and all that want it, however temporarily and for whatever purpose.

However, this doesn't resolve Shep's problem, the solution of which requires invocking a special name for those people who marry for life for the purposes of procreation.

I propose a new set of terms. The first and most broadly-used will be "Breeders", refering to those people who go about donating their DNA to a new generation. There will, of course, be the "unwed breeder" (aka "harlot" or "trailer trash") and the "wed breeder" (aka "divorcee" or "serial monogamist"). For the truly hardcore, we'll have the term "MonoBreeder," with the hip InterCapLettering, implying a lifetime commitment to a single partner, with children.

Of course, then there are those of us who are unmarried and childless, but living in a lifetime relationship commitment... we're probably just commonly referred to as "scum" by folk like Shep. Myself, I prefer the term "happy fuckers"...
posted by five fresh fish at 5:16 PM on October 7, 2002

Hey, shep, what the hell gives you the right to take MY money, simply because you wanna dump out babies by the bushel?

You want the privilege and right to my tax money, simply because you choose to breed.

Thanks, but no thanks. Let's level the playing field: If you are married and want to have children and/or want to do anything whatsoever that doesn't involve me or my money, you're welcome to it.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:20 PM on October 7, 2002

Parents normally impress their set of values on children.

I understand that you say you don't have a problem with homosexuality per se, but since homosexuality is not generally seen by the scientific community to be related to values or any other nurture-related cause, it's hard to see what your problem with homosexual parenting really is. Whether a person accepts their homosexuality and is comfortable with it is certainly affected by upbringing. But since there is no evidence that children raised by same-sex couples are any more likely to be homosexual than those raised by opposite-sex couples, I don't get what this part of your argument is really saying aside from "I'm not comfortable with homosexual couples having children in case they make more homosexuals". We're not in any danger of becoming extinct due to a lack of reproduction.

I don't have a problem with polygamy (I have a problem with the potential issues when it comes to taxes, but that's another issue). As long as all parties are consenting adults, it's none of my business.
posted by biscotti at 5:31 PM on October 7, 2002

Evolution works on a species level, not just on an individual level. Having a small proportion of members who don't personally bear offspring, and spend their energies elsewhere (ideally, improving the lot of other members) is a reasonable survival strategy. Same-sex couples will 'naturally' end up with children for two reasons: (1) adoption, which is what is 'naturally' supposed to happen to orphans: a relative who can afford to support them adopts them (the reason this is a state-sponsored process nowadays is due to the fracturing of society into nuclear families, which are no more 'natural' than gay couples); (2) a lesbian has a heterosexual affair, likely for the reason of having a child.

Secondly, the gay/straight, please tick one, construction of sexuality is an artifact of Victorian psychological theory and 70's political activism. It is well established that most people are somewhat bisexual by nature, exclusive heterosexuality in thought as well as deed being rare, and exclusive homosexuality being rarer. People's pair-bonding is constrained by a thick hedge of social taboos, the cause of ordered society for the many and misery for a few.

As for marriage, since in civilized society illegitimacy has ceased to be a meaningful concept, and women have individual personal rights absent a husband or father, marriage has become no more than a right to act as one's spouse's legal agent, and an inheritance claim. Otherwise, it's the spouses' own business.

So I think the solution isn't to legalize polygamy and gay marriage etc, the solution is to move marriage right out of the legislative sphere and into the private sphere, where people can call themselves married according to the rules of their church or culture or whatever, wear rings and change their names as suits themselves. The State's only interest in the matter should be to register powers of agency (with a rebuttable presumption of the power existing between persons who are known, by their friends and relatives, to be married), to regulate inheritance, and resolve joint property, child custody and maintenance disputes.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 6:10 PM on October 7, 2002

Parents normally impress their set of values on children.

You mean "parents normally fail miserably in their attempts to impress their set of values on children."

I'm not just being snarky; it's evident that children learn how to behave largely from their peer group, and that the main influence that parents have is making sure the peer group is basically a good one. Your offspring are about as likely to adopt values diametrically opposed to yours solely to piss you off as they are to unthinkingly accept your attempts to indoctrinate them.
posted by kindall at 6:12 PM on October 7, 2002

FFF, that's (partly) why we elect a government. Because there's no way we can all agree on how to spend any money given to the social good. To some degree much government money would be best unspent, but I do feel that encouraging people to continue the human race would be a good thing (tm). :-) But when a government gets elected that you feel (as a minority) spends your money unwisely, you do get to bitch and moan (because you did vote, right? That's your ticked to bitching and moaning freedom! :-)

And heck no, I don't think people who don't choose to have children are scum. Up to now I've chosen to refrain from having children, and most people would (I hope) consider me a decent person, even if my morals do differ from time to time. Children are a personal choice and it doesn't make you a good or a bad person to make it, as long are you make the choice to have children with the best interests of the child in mind.

I would tend to agree that marriage is becoming silly in the respect of too many divorces. Unfortunately, I'm no counsellor, so I don't have a solution to this.

So, you can vote your way, and have your opinion, and I'll vote my way and have my opinion. What makes all this lots of fun is when there's many people voting one way in one or two provinces, but not as many voting that way across Canada. And that would pretty much sum up the Canadian opinion on gay marriage...

Anyways, maybe people are looking at the marriage term differently from me (ok, not maybe, for sure). I'm looking at it less from the "Right to have that paper" point of view and more at it from the "What is marriage, and how does it affect my government and our money?" point of view.

>I don't get what this part of your argument is really saying aside from "I'm not comfortable with homosexual couples having children in case they make more homosexuals".

Okay, here's another one of my opinons, and that is that for many, their sexuality is a choice. There are the occasional cases where sexuality wasn't a choice, I would admit. But I look at it like I look at people who are "fat" (and being fat isn't a bad thing all the time, and being thin isn't a good thing all the time either). Some have genetics that make them fat, some just choose to be, either directly or indirectly (sadly, indirectly chosen by myself).

I think a good example of how homosexuality can be a choice is to look at bisexual people. Anyone bisexual should be able to make a choice between being hetero or homosexual if they were asked.

So, if homosexuality can be a choice, and as with many choices, it can be influenced by important people (like parents), what it comes down to is: Is it in humanity's best interest to encourage homosexuality?

That's a tough question that I'm not even going to touch with a 100 ft. pole other than to say what I've said before -- too many gay people without lots of really modern technology would cause the amount of people on earth to dwindle. Maybe you would consider that good, maybe not.

Like I said, I don't want to put it into terms of "Is being gay in humanity's best interest?" because that's getting way out of my league, and it is just starting to get far too personal at that point.

>We're not in any danger of becoming extinct due to a lack of reproduction.

Maybe not, but at current trends (Canada's population growth rate is 99%) we'll be below 18 million before I die. And that statistic is including decades of wrongful gay opression. I wonder what that statistic will be like in the coming years as it becomes less economically viable to have children, and as the popularity of being gay increases.

Now, knowing that a country like Canada needs more people (a country our size with so few people doesn't make economic sense, which would explain our tax rate compared to the US's), I think it would be best to encourage more copulation (safely). But that's just me.

aeschenkarnos>The State's only interest in the matter should be to register powers of agency (with a rebuttable presumption of the power existing between persons who are known, by their friends and relatives, to be married), to regulate inheritance, and resolve joint property, child custody and maintenance disputes.

Now that is the best thing I've heard all day! But, looking at what I've just said, I still think the state has a business to encourage more parenting in Canada...

kindall, you may be correct in this day and age. But then I look at people who, when I was a kid, despised doing what their parents said, and now either wish they did, or are now doing what they were told.

Man, I gotta stop typing so much. I always seem to blather on about things...
posted by shepd at 6:27 PM on October 7, 2002

shepd - "What the government does/doesn't support is my business as much as the next guys. Marriage is something that government supports with my money. If I think the government is spending my money irresponsibly, it's my business to say so"

Would some of you Canadians help educate an American on how your government spends money to help support marriage? Our government does provide some support for kids, but not for marriage. Just curious.

Shepd - You seem concerned that Canada's population will dwindle excessively if you don't have more breeders. Given that the planet as a whole is way over-populated and becoming more so daily, would you support having your government spend money on encouraging immigration as a possible alternative to spending money on encouraging reproduction?
posted by tdismukes at 7:02 PM on October 7, 2002

Well, lets see...

There's some here, such as public pension benefits, death benefits, adoption rights, work benefits, and others.

Here's a US list, which I'm sure is quite parallel to Canada's (which is a PITA to find, it seems).

I actually found that site quite interesting. They seem to think that anyone against gay marriages hates everyone and everything. And people who are such strong proponents of gay marriages wonder why we think they're totally insane... Uhh... colored/white restrooms are a very different issue than this.

A funny tidbit -- to find those sites I only searched for 'canada marriage benefits' on google. If google has a say, it'd be saying gay people only want to get married for benefits... Which I hope is wrong.

>Given that the planet as a whole is way over-populated and becoming more so daily, would you support having your government spend money on encouraging immigration as a possible alternative to spending money on encouraging reproduction?

Sure. We already have a lot of immigration, though. I wonder if opening the gates wider would start to allow criminals into the country. But hey, with proper background checking, why the heck not?

Anyways, to justify that we might be going to far on immigration if we open it up more, currently 336,300 babies are born in Canada yearly. For comparison, there are 227,414 immigrants per year. On a percentage basis, that's 40% new people in Canada from immigration. A big stat, if you ask me.
posted by shepd at 9:42 PM on October 7, 2002

Start to let criminals into the country? You're an innocent, I see.

Sexuality as a choice, eh? That flies in the face of most every current explanation for homosexuality. Choosing to live a life of condemnation, inequitable treatment, and hatred. Yah, I can just see why people would choose that path.

Anyone bisexual should be able to make a choice? What an utterly bizarre conceit.

I'm looking at it... from a "What is marriage, and how does it affect my government and our money?" point of view.

Marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults, as regards the distribution of income, possessions, and (possible) children at such time as the marriage is fubared by divorce or death. There are possible financial benefits in the form of tax savings; however, my experience as a long-term (sixteen years!) common-law partner indicates that the tax savings are next to nothing.

There is an tax advantage in having children, though of course this is immediately more than lost in the cost of children. They're far more expensive than they'll ever save.

So, in short, it appears that there is no financial cost to you in allowing homosexual marriages.

Basically, it comes down to you being a bigot, but one who's trying to deny it by intellectualizing it through faulty arguments.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:18 PM on October 7, 2002

Is it in humanity's best interest to encourage homosexuality?

But the point you keep missing is that people will be, and always have been, homosexual whether it's "encouraged" or vehemently discouraged, the majority of scientific thinking says that it's not this choice you seem to think it is. Do you honestly think that if homosexuals are forced underground again or gay youths are made uncomfortable about their homosexuality that they'll suddenly turn straight and become happy breeders providing stable home environments for their offspring? This seems to be very common thinking amongst people who disapprove of homosexuality: if we let them feel comfortable and just like the rest of us the gay population will skyrocket. Allowing homosexual couples to adopt provides stable homes for children who might not otherwise have them, and has no discernable ill-effects on the child (aside from teasing in school, which is an argument for further education, not against same-sex parenting). Studies have shown it makes them no more likely to be homosexual than children of straight couples. So, again, in light of the fact that people will be gay whether we want them to be or not, and that children raised by same-sex couples don't suffer for it, or tend to get "recruited", what's your objection?
posted by biscotti at 10:31 PM on October 7, 2002

5FF: Sexuality as a choice, eh? That flies in the face of most every current explanation for homosexuality. Choosing to live a life of condemnation, inequitable treatment, and hatred. Yah, I can just see why people would choose that path.

A messy question, but one worth delving into. Is religion a choice? Favorite foods? Preferred style of clothing? I think there's a hundred PhD theses in the concept of volition, but we can skim the topic lightly here if we like. :-)

Assume there's a spectrum (one of my favorite starts to any discussion) between pure free choice and irresistible compulsion. At the end of free choice might be glancing at your watch right now. Something you feel no particular desire to do, will gain nothing much from, and will suffer no loss from not doing. At the other end is, say, breathing. Cease to breathe and you die. Actually you most likely can't even hold your breath long enough to go unconscious without an artificial aid, like a plastic bag. Which you can use, from free choice, to short-circuit the compulsion, thus moving breathing down the spectrum a bit.

Conversely, if you don't show up to work for a month you'll probably be fired, though I would hope your employer or fellow employees might come looking for you sooner than that. Being fired will adversely affect your life, and you know that, so it belongs a bit further towards the breathing end of the spectrum than the watch-glancing end.

So where on the spectrum does sex fit in? People can live without having sex. It's not pleasant. I did it for ... eight years, not counting time before puberty. There are ways to cope (eg, internet porn), but it's a thoroughly unpleasant way to live. Since I believe one should consider everything, I've thought about rape (both ways), and come to the conclusion that I couldn't personally do that, that absent some kind of total loss-of-control hormonal rush, it just isn't in me to desire sex so much that I could impose it on a resisting victim (as opposed to a willing participant). On the other hand, I've taken a lot of trouble over getting dressed, learned stupid dances, taken the odd dumb risk, and showed up to a great number of not-much-fun gatherings over my time on earth purely in order to increase my chances of getting laid.

It's pretty important to me, then. So sex probably belongs in the middle of the spectrum, for me if not most people. Who we have sex with though ... how much of a choice is that? I've never tried with someone I didn't find attractive, but it's conceivable, if demeaning ... grit my teeth and think of Milla Jovovich? :-) Consider the so-called mercy fuck (something else I've never personally participated in ... to my knowledge :-). What it comes down to is having sex with someone you're not particularly sexually attracted to, because you like them as a person. Which is an option open to us all, gay or straight. Especially, for anatomical reasons, women.

So it seems to me (and for the sake of full disclosure, I am basically hetero, though I like really slim and pretty women, and there are some men, also slim and pretty, who I wouldn't kick out of bed) that the choice of a non-practicing homosexual is a life of internet porn and mercy fucks. It's a crap choice, but it is a choice.

In summary, in my arrogance I shall dare to suggest to the queers here: don't push the "it's not a choice" line. It is a choice, between misery and happiness, and it's a choice you've every right to make, and further, every right not to be discouraged from by meddlesome prudes.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 12:23 AM on October 8, 2002

mediareport, I stick to what I say.

The facts be damned, eh? Your logic is all over the map here, shepd.

The human race would not exist if the majority of humans were gay...For humans to continue existing they must have straight sex

For dolphins to continue existing they must have straight sex, too, and yet scientists report seeing all-male same-sex dolphin orgies, with erect penises being rubbed along hot, wet dolphin bodies. Uh-oh. Did nature "intend" that?

We're not talking about asexually reproducing worms here, shepd. It's an undeniable fact that homosexual activity has been observed in the wild in hundreds of animal species, including our closest living relatives, the bonobo chimps. Playful touching - to the point of orgasm, sometimes not - occurs between bonobos of all sexes; it's an essential part of their social structure. Birds have been seen pairing in long-term same-sex couples. Whales, giraffes, gorillas, blackbirds, gulls, lovebirds, parakeets, lemurs, gazelles, bats, squirrels, seals...the list of species in which some variety of same-sex pairing has been observed is long and growing.

Homosexuality is a regularly occurring natural phenomenon, just like bi- and heterosexuality. And many animals have been observed taking advantage of the pleasurable sensations of sex *without* breeding. That, my friend, is what's going on in "nature."

Deal with it.
posted by mediareport at 9:13 AM on October 8, 2002

Oops:

"Playful touching - to the point of orgasm, sometimes not - "
should read:

"Playful touching - sometimes to the point of orgasm, sometimes not -"
posted by mediareport at 9:16 AM on October 8, 2002

It's important to distinguish between the desire of sex and the act.

Het or homo, one can choose to not engage in sexual activities, certainly.

But that doesn't make one any less het or homo, just as it doesn't make you any less male or female.

And, no, "desire" isn't quite exact enough for what I'm saying, but it ain't worth the effort to rack my brain for the perfect phrase.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:45 AM on October 8, 2002