Logiclul said:
Marriage is the legal act of connecting two people as a unit, and typically leading to them living their lives together. A common byproduct is children, which is the real goal here. For the human race to go on, for the country to grow and become more powerful, people need to procreate. This is where gay marriage comes into play.
The government sees a gay marriage as two persons who will not have children but will take benefits which are meant for those who the government believes WILL have children. This is not good financially for the government, and as such is a problem.
I'm sorry, but that's bullshit, and I think you know it. There are plenty of marriages, that I know of, that did not produce children - all normal straight marriages. I don't think that you believe that anyway.
Logiclul said:
So, where should we stand? To support legal gay marriage is to support the following:
1) Happiness for the couple (or rather, more happiness than not legal gay marriage presumably)
2) Less expected income for the state per year
3) Less population (ergo power) for the nation
Now, how do we weigh the happiness of a couple versus the losses which our state will suffer per marriage? Before I do that, I want to say that while those who are gay have already supposedly aided toward 3, and perhaps 2, it is encouraging of the gay culture to support gay marriage legally. So in the long run, legalized gay marriage should lead to more gay persons.
C'mon, you know that's crap as well, 10% of any given population on average, is believed to be homosexual, that number doesn't go up or down depending on how convenient it is. If anything, pure numbers it would go up (more births) based on your model.
Logiclul said:
Anyway, consider the happiness of two gay people who are informally married but not legally married. Are they sad that they are not married legally to where their happiness is less than neutral overall? I think not, but that is a point which is tough to argue. How much more happiness could 'official' marriage possibly bring?
It's less about rights for them, and more about not being discriminated against, they should be afforded the benefits of any two straight people. And if two people were infertile together, but decided to adopt, or not have children at all, or never planned on having children, your system doesn't work. And that happens alot.
Logiclul said:
The loss in income, population, and power is best measured like this:
A google search tells me that there are 307 million persons in the United States currently.
For every 1 million gay couples, there are 2 million gays, and 2 million people which will not procreate.
I recall hearing that about 5% of the nation was openly gay. So, 15.35 million gays are estimated in America (rough rough estimate). Can you see why the government may have problems, why we as people perhaps should have problems, with this many people (remember, legalized marriage would seem to imply the rate at which gays are open will increase) not procreating? This may be a serious (buzzword I know; if you need a more technical proposition, I'd say large) blow to the United States' power and economy.
Ok, while you're above comment on more gay marriages now has context, you're still dead wrong, New York has already legalised it, all the other liberal (synomous for 'moral' I would say) states will shortly follow suit, and then it will become nationally afforded before the end of Obama's second term.
Logiclul said:
Other factors are things such as expected good a baby will do and how much help they would be in the world in terms of national power etc, but that is difficult to figure when making a decision on the matter. It is also not a variable which would seem to carry much weight in the decision as well, as to assume that there would be enough babies which would cause more problems if those who were gay were straight such that our nation faces even greater and steeper problems, is to assume potential collapse of the United States. To assume that would be pointless, as it is not a conclusion worth considering.
Why? It's very much a conclusion worth considering, world population growth is too high, unsustainably high some might say, so why not encourage people not to have children, or better yet, adopt children? Also, think about the productivity of these people who were in happy married relationships, it would have (overall) a greatly positive impact on the economy, because these people would be happier, and thus perform better on average.
Logiclul said:
tl'dr human ethics and morals seem to imply that we should allow gay marriage, however on closer inspection, this may not be the case
No it is the case, and frankly its not something anyone of us can stop. They are a real demographic, that has been abused for hundreds of years, and we're finally giving them the same rights as the rest of us have enjoyed for those centuries, and frankly it is about time.
We should support it since we're just delaying the inevitable, more importantly, because it's the right thing to do, and not think about nickels and dimes, like the impact of their lower tax rates on the revenue of the government, but about how we as a people have moved forward sociologically instead.
