Gay Marriage: Is It Perhaps Moral to Oppose It Independent of Religion?
- Thread starter Logiclul
- Start date
Recommended Videos
As several people have pointed out, homosexual couples do not reproduce, putting less strain on the worlds population. That is a good thing, and one of the reasons (aside from that whole "freedom of choice" thing) that I support gay and lesbian couples and gay marriage.
You do sound like a troll, so I can understand why people would think this.Logiclul said:
Biggest hole in your argument and why it totally fails is, as has been stated already, not allowing gay people to marry is not miraculously going to make them straight and have children.
Of course, homosexuals are still capable of breeding (and do).ElPatron said:
There are some minor issues with arguing "pre-existent" children, since they aren't really negatively affected by gay marriage either, but really. You do know gays don't magically become sterile, right? That many, even those who are married, choose to have their own offspring?
And you are failing to take into account the OP's point, specifically that giving the legal right of marriage to people who do not procreate is giving them a collection of privileges and tax breaks specifically meant to encourage people to procreate.BiscuitTrouser said:
I don't really agree with the OP, insofar as I don't see why a double standard can be argued to be moral, regardless of what that double standard is, but he does have a valid argument.
The vast majority of marriage rights are meant to go to "family units" and are designed to make the having and raising of children much easier. Things like tax deductions (or even exemptions), increased social security benefits, medicaid, etc are very much an encouragement to have children, and homosexual couples can't do that. They are effectively taking these benefits from the system and not contributing back to it.
Again, I don't personally agree, but it is a point of view that is very rarely brought up and worth considering properly.
Edit: In response to all the people going "It helps with overpopulation!": You're all insane. The world is in absolutely no danger of overpopulation. With our current methods of resource usage, we could reliably sustain twice the world's current population. More if we refine those methods. We do not have a massive deficit of resources, and there is a lot of untapped land in the Americas, Africa and some parts of Asia with resources we simply don't use. We are in no danger of running out.
there are scientists trying to prove the earth is flat and 9-11 was an inside job.Kopikatsu said:
So?
Adoption.Agayek said:
Some gay people do it.
And some married people dont have kids. Are they taking from the system too? Are they still allowed to be married?
"2) Less expected income for the state per year"
"...legalized gay marriage should lead to more gay persons."
I fail to understand those two "truths".
How exactly being married means less income to the state per year? Also, last time I checked being gay wasnt some kind of hobby that people chose because it was popular. How dies legalized marriage lead to more gay people?
I'm new to these forums so i have to ask. Do you gain something by opening a highly discused thread? (some forums do that) If this one also does it then we know why the OP made this thread.
"...legalized gay marriage should lead to more gay persons."
I fail to understand those two "truths".
How exactly being married means less income to the state per year? Also, last time I checked being gay wasnt some kind of hobby that people chose because it was popular. How dies legalized marriage lead to more gay people?
I'm new to these forums so i have to ask. Do you gain something by opening a highly discused thread? (some forums do that) If this one also does it then we know why the OP made this thread.
Just because gay couples cannot physically produce children it does not mean they cannot have their own children. There are plenty of children within America that are up for adoption. That right there takes away your, or anybody's, worry that they will just be taking benefits meant for straight couples while not having to support children. Also you are forgetting that lesbian couples can have children using sperm donors. I feel like you are just giving homophobes a more logical reason from which to base their hatred so they don't seem so unreasonable and prejudiced. I'm not saying that you are one, but I don't think you understand how much this argument could set back progress that has been made towards legalizing gay marriage.Logiclul said:
The problem is OP starts with the faulty assumption that marriage is around to encourage procreation. While that might have been the case when we were barely out of the trees, have you noticed that there are over 7 billion of us now? clearly procreation is not lacking. Also, since when does the government encourage marriage for procreation's sake? not all married couples have children, and in fact some are even incapable of having children due to infertility. The real irony in all this is that procreation, when you get right down to it, is a base instinct. Man kind prides himself on his ability to go against instinct and create a society, so why is it that instinct is taken so seriously in this one case?
The logic you have used to define the morality of marriage can be summed up as follows: "For a marriage to be moral there must be procreation." So by your own logic a couple with no intention to procreate could never marry. Additionally those who wished to procreate but were incapable of doing so should also be unable to marry.
Gay and bisexual teens are also more likely to have children than their heterosexual peers.[footnote]http://www.blogher.com/frame.php?url=http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/media/releases/2008/mr-08-165.html[/footnote]Zachary Amaranth said:
If I had a nickle for every gay person I met who had a kid before they came out, I might be able to have a go at a cheap arcade game.
Married couples get substantial tax breaks solely for being married. If gay couples were granted the same rights, they would be contributing significantly less money to the government via taxes. The second statement makes absolutely no sense, but the first is actually true. The difference in income shouldn't be too bad, seeing as homosexuals are a relatively small proportion of the population, but it will reduce government income.El Mal said:
If you accept that argument as true, yes they are taking from the system and no they should not be allowed to be married.BiscuitTrouser said:
As I said before, I disagree. All I was trying to get across is that you missed the point the first time around, and that the OP does make a valid argument. It's up to you whether or not you agree, but there is logic behind it.
Or maybe gay married couples can take in and adopt kids that are in foster care, thereby offering homes for children that do not have them and taking some of the burden off of the government having to support abandoned children.
More than that, the institution of marriage being only for children is an outdated ideal. We don't need more people. Ask China. The reason why you had 10 children back when is 1, you had crappy birth control, 2, religion often frowned upon birth control, and 3, because it was likely many of them were gonna DIE!
By your reasoning heterosexual couples that don't want children shouldn't get married either.
More than that, I don't get your reasoning behind there being less money for the state because gay couples don't have children or that gay couples are taking benefits that should only be reserved for married couples with children. The only benefit my parents ever had from having children was they got a small tax break because they had dependants and that didn't occur until they actually had children.
More than that, the institution of marriage being only for children is an outdated ideal. We don't need more people. Ask China. The reason why you had 10 children back when is 1, you had crappy birth control, 2, religion often frowned upon birth control, and 3, because it was likely many of them were gonna DIE!
By your reasoning heterosexual couples that don't want children shouldn't get married either.
More than that, I don't get your reasoning behind there being less money for the state because gay couples don't have children or that gay couples are taking benefits that should only be reserved for married couples with children. The only benefit my parents ever had from having children was they got a small tax break because they had dependants and that didn't occur until they actually had children.
what about the orphans, or wards of the state?
adoption: its a thing.
just like sperm donation and surrogacy.
adoption: its a thing.
just like sperm donation and surrogacy.
To make this point of view valid, you'd have to force all married couples to have children. Yes, FORCED. If you don't believe in that, the point as a strike against gay marriage has no logical merit. Which, oddly enough, is the exact reason the OP doesn't have a logical stance.Agayek said:
