Quote:
|
Uhm, no, the point does not stand. I asked you to provide relevant research which supports your claim and you provided research which claims the exact opposite. Wanna give it another try?
|
No, the data stated - clearly - that there is a difference. What the researcher then went on to do is cherry pick homosexuals above an undefined income & education level and then stated that same sex parents were a "minor determinant".
Quote:
|
Dude, you're an atheist and a homophobe? For real?! Were you dropped on you head as a child or something? I've seen spam emails that make more sense than you.
|
Define homophobe.
Do I think homosexuality is disgusting? Absolutely. Do I think homosexuals make inferior parents to heterosexual parents? Yep. Do I want to pay for their unproductive lifestyle? Nope. I don't want to kill them, and I don't think they should be imprisoned or tortured or what have you - although the gay pride B.S. is certainly annoying.
I don't see how this isn't congruent with atheism. Why should an atheist operate under Christian slave morality? Could someone even be called an atheist if they continued to operate under this slave morality?
Quote:
|
The point of marriage is not to create more children to sustain the state. That idea is ridiculous and horribly Big Brotherish, like straight out of Orson Welles' 1984. Neither is marriage, at least in the psychology of your everyday western world man or woman, something we do because it benefits the state. People generally do it out of commitment to eachother, their love and relationships.
|
No, not the state - but if we use anthropology as a tool, you'll find that marriage (for the VAST majority of human history, and I'd argue for most humans continuing to live today) is not out of love. It is, and was, a practicial institution used to produce heirs and navigate patrilineal, matrilineal, or bilineal societys to ones advantage.
The notion of marriage for love is really quite novel, and considering how divorce rates have skyrocketed, I'd say it hasn't been succesful.
Quote:
|
Even when accepting that gay marriages could be a net drain, there are still more things to consider. For example, if both gay members of a couple pay their taxes, their net contribution to society may be positive. Even as married, let's say they give more money to the state than they take. Should their relationship still be discriminated against?
|
Why do you harp on equality and discrimination? Not all things are equal, nor should they be treated as such. Anyways, again - gays can get married in any and all states. The only thing that some states prevent is from having legally recognized marriages occur in their state. Why is this not sufficient? Why should they be entitled to tax benefits designed to benefit the single social arrangement which is most likely to produce children?
Anyways, married people pay less in taxes. This is a fact. So it'd be impossible for a homosexual couple in the USA to pay more in taxes as a married couple than they otherwise would.
Quote:
|
You have to ask yourself; why there are gay people at all? If you know anything about biology and evolutionary theory, you know there should be a fitness benefit, right?
|
So myself and the rest of my society should subsidize a social relationship which doesn't benefit society?