Gay Marriage: Is It Perhaps Moral to Oppose It Independent of Religion?

[Kopikatsu]

Something you're missing is that overpopulation is a serious issue facing the world. Not so much in first world countries, no, but you have to start somewhere.

Also, it leaves more women for straight men and more men for straight women. Win-win!

Edit: By this logic, yes, I'm anti-bisexual. It doesn't matter which, but...pick one!

 

[ResonanceCascade]

Logiclul are you trolling or just stupid? Perhaps in America there are some crazy laws that give married couples financial benefits based around the expectation that they will have children, but here in Australia, you only get any support for having a child after having said child. The only benefit I can see is that the government will consider your income as a combined total, bumping you up to the next tax bracket, giving them a reason to take more of your earnings. I can clearly see how taking more money is going to be a massive drain on any government.

"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."

Aside from this massive flaw, your argument is also invalid thanks to the fact that world population is a massive issue. Estimates in food production capability clearly indicate a maximum population that the planet can sustain, and current grow rates will see the planet reaching its limit soon enough.

Just to clarify I have no stake in this argument, I am a happily married man with no doubt of my sexuality. It just annoys the hell out of me when people use any form a messed up logic to try and deny other people basic human rights.

 

[Logiclul]

I never said this was my view, so please calm down.

Now:
Adoption is mostly irrelevant as it does add to the population. Adoption rates won't increase likely much with gay marriage being legalized, and it would take a large increase to lower the funding for adoption agencies (which are far below standard anyway).

IVF and artificial insemination are valid points, but I don't believe that the ratio of gay couples getting this (especially multiple times) is going to be anywhere near the ratio of straight couples getting it.

Population overgrowth isn't a direct problem at the moment. In 100 years the expected population is to be handled well by the planet. In 200 years is when a problem seems to arise. However, by then to assume that at the rate our technology is advancing that we haven't had any major wars that significantly hurt population or that we haven't begun inhabiting other planets seems poor judgment.

The rights to equality before the law > Welfare of the State.

No one is being given more rights than others. I could say that I and my few thousand friends here only want to marry people who are on Death Row. If someone is on Death Row, and they get married, is not for the happiness of the innocent partner to not kill the other? I see your point though, I don't fully agree that the State is second to the people always; as the state is the people, and the people are the state.

 

[ikey]

So, what you're saying is, it might be moral to refuse people their rights because then the state would have slightly less income? Seniors can get married, does the government expect them to have children, and is it encouraging underage sex by allowing marriage before 18? Why do you have to be so adamant about not allowing people to have something just because it 'isn't that big a deal?' Also, again like others before me have said, overpopulation is a big problem in other countries, and we should still lower ours a bit more so we don't also contribute to the global problem. Basically, religion owns a large part of our government right now. There's a lot of corruption too, can't forget about that.

 

[AlAaraaf74]

Oh please.

The only reason Gays arn't allowed to marry is because memberrs of the Catholic Church will flip their shit.

 

[Logiclul]

How much more happiness could 'official' marriage possibly bring?

Do you mean apart from your country acknowledging that your relationship is worth as much as the average straight relationship?

If your country is so important to you then you should be against gay marriage for stated reasons.

Will be back tonight to respond to more.

 

[Dags90]

Do you mean apart from your country acknowledging that your relationship is worth as much as the average straight relationship?

Exactly. And not having to justify your relationship to hospital administrators should your partner be involved in an accident.

I mean really, what's the big deal?

Also, OP seems to fail to understand that some scandalous straight people have babies out of wedlock. Wouldn't it just make more sense to attach all those benefits to having children, whether it be in a marriage, out of a marriage, or through adoption? Not to mention all those people who get married and don't have kids, mooching off the marriage benefits.

Greek? In my captcha? It's more likely than you think.

 

[101flyboy]

How much more happiness could 'official' marriage possibly bring?

Do you mean apart from your country acknowledging that your relationship is worth as much as the average straight relationship?

If your country is so important to you then you should be against gay marriage for stated reasons.

Will be back tonight to respond to more.

Actually, what's positive is that all legal, tax-paying, good-natured citizens in a country have equal legal rights.

 

[Gasaraki]

3) Less population (ergo power) for the nation

Because obviously, when gay people aren't allowed to marry, they become straight and start pumping out babies, right?

 

[101flyboy]

I never said this was my view, so please calm down.

Now:
Adoption is mostly irrelevant as it does add to the population. Adoption rates won't increase likely much with gay marriage being legalized, and it would take a large increase to lower the funding for adoption agencies (which are far below standard anyway).

IVF and artificial insemination are valid points, but I don't believe that the ratio of gay couples getting this (especially multiple times) is going to be anywhere near the ratio of straight couples getting it.

Population overgrowth isn't a direct problem at the moment. In 100 years the expected population is to be handled well by the planet. In 200 years is when a problem seems to arise. However, by then to assume that at the rate our technology is advancing that we haven't had any major wars that significantly hurt population or that we haven't begun inhabiting other planets seems poor judgment.

The rights to equality before the law > Welfare of the State.

No one is being given more rights than others. I could say that I and my few thousand friends here only want to marry people who are on Death Row. If someone is on Death Row, and they get married, is not for the happiness of the innocent partner to not kill the other? I see your point though, I don't fully agree that the State is second to the people always; as the state is the people, and the people are the state.

Your ignorance is almost hilarious. Almost. I'm guessing you made this thread for laughs and if so, you've been successful, at least on my behalf.

 

[Darkmantle]

I will ask again Logicul

Should Infertile people be barred from marriage?

 

[Colour Scientist]

If your country is so important to you then you should be against gay marriage for stated reasons.

Will be back tonight to respond to more.

Whut?

First: Your reasons don't make any sense.

Second: When I said country, I wasn't referring to some patriotic notion, I was referring to the people and the legal system. People (myself included) cannot imagine the frustration of being told that your relationship, with the person you love, doesn't deserve the same rights as a straight couple's would.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Oh please.

The only reason Gays arn't allowed to marry is because memberrs of the Catholic Church will flip their shit.

Eeeeeh, there are scientists trying to prove that homosexuality (As in, homosexual couples being around/raising children) damages our kids. Or something. I don't keep up on that whole whatever.

Do you mean apart from your country acknowledging that your relationship is worth as much as the average straight relationship?

Exactly. And not having to justify your relationship to hospital administrators should your partner be involved in an accident.

I mean really, what's the big deal?

Greek? In my captcha? It's more likely than you think.

Dah. This is more or less the only reason I would want homosexuals to be able to marry. If it was just 'We want to marry', I'd say 'Get over yourselves. Being married doesn't validate your love for each other. It's just a piece of paper, dammit.'

But there is a clear legal benefit to being married (Such as being able to visit your significant other in the hospital, tax breaks, etc etc.)

So! As long as marriage has a legal consequence, everyone should be able to get it. Marriage for all!

 

[TheIronRuler]

I think that you're picturing a situation resembling "Children of Men", which is utterly absurd.
More bodies to feed is never something inherently good. They can also be a burden to the society and the social welfare system, not a productive member of society.
Plus, we're not running out of people. India hit is hovering around One Billion, China is at 1.2 Billion. Letting gay people marry won't stop them from having children. I know of gay couples that use a surrogate mother or a lesbian couple that uses a sperm doner...
Your argument is flawed. It suggests that population growth = economical growth.
.

 

[Hawk of Battle]

OP seems to be corrolating marriage with population growth. This is a mistake, as people can just as easily go unmarried and still have many childeren. Please rectify your worldview.

 

[superbatranger]

I feel like you have no clue what you're talking about. Equal rights, anyone?

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

2) Less expected income for the state per year

This one is ambiguous at best. Gays will work just as much as any child free straight couple of which there are plenty

3) Less population (ergo power) for the nation

Keeping gays unmarried won't make them breed nor does marriage equal children. Also gay couples could adopt the massive surplus of children we have that nobody seems to want, which a number of them are willing to do.

This ties into the first point you made, happiness. We will have more couples to raise our orphans as well as the fact that some gay couple seek out in vitro fertilization and raise their own kids.

IE, your points have no grounding in reality and neglect the fact that plenty of straight couples are doing exactly what you are claiming would happen with the gays but... I don't see you seeking to revoke the rights of married and child free couples.

I do consider my country important, ergo I am for gay marriage as it creates a contractual basis on gender, which is sexist and pointless. Gays are equally productive as straights and can raise children successfully. We have plenty of kids to adopt and we need more healthy environments for children to be raised in. Gay marriage actually helps with this, especially by your original logic.

In the chance that you're trolling, this was kinda weak. Try again when you've refined your technique. If you're not trolling, try thinking out your logic more.

 

[Belaam]

Edit: Contemplating the matter further I have come to two realisations

1- No person could use this argument seriously, so this is most likely a troll.

Sadly, go lurk some Christian fundimentalist sites... you will see that as batshit crazy as this is, it's got nothing on some of the other arguments made.

The title here hints to me that the author opposes gay marriage because of religion, but thinks he has found this amazing argument against gay marriage for non-relgious people. (Their clear assumption that all religious people automatically oppose gay marriage, so the only people left to convince are those who do not have religion)

 

[13thforswarn]

I fail to see why gay people shouldn't be able to marry. And I don't see why religious people care either (I'm Christian by the way). Really, whether or not a gay couple get married to each other has no effect on you, so why should you care?

 

[Thistlehart]

I applaud you, sir, for at least attempting to come up with a non-religious reason for keeping gays second-class citizens. I often challenge people to do so, and they constantly fail. You have failed as well, but at least your point had some grounding in logical thought and bigger-picture thinking.

Unfortunately, your argument is so full of obvious holes and flaws that I am flabbergasted you didn't see them upon proofreading your post. You did proofread, didn't you?

I commend you also for attempting to start a reasonable debate on the subject, but let me save you some time in the future.

There is no good reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry. None. You don't have to like it. I personally hate religion in nearly all its forms, but I don't go around picketing churches, mosques, synogogues, or any other sort of temple. I just let it be. It's none of my business how other people live their lives. I can accept that.

Why can't you?