Thom Yorke

The whole theory is just illogical though. What if there were two heterosexual men left that were infertile? It's just an insane situation that would never happen.

And I think you're forgetting birth rate...

SIRIUSB

Birth rate would entail opposite sex relations I would think? If "there were two heterosexual men left that were infertile" then the human species would cease to be . . . get it?

I think everyone is confusing my simple statement with homophobia, which is not the case. My statement is quite logical and most credible. All species rely on their first instinct of survival . . . same sex relations oppose this natural defense mechanism.

Other than that . . . I am all for loving whomever you desire.

Zaqarbal

I wish all men were homosexual...... except for me. No competitors!

__________________

hip hop bunny hop

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".

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?

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.

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.

So myself and the rest of my society should subsidize a social relationship which doesn't benefit society?

__________________
Have mercy on the poor.

lucifer_sam

I'd argue that commonly, marriage is still very much a socioeconomic contract, divorce itself (especially the concept of alimony) being the almighty collateral. Producing heirs is the evolutionary flip of the coin, but marriage really hasn't evolved much over time. And when you think about it, same-sex marriage puts that contract at an even keel, since the gender roles are the same.

There's not much sacred about marriage. It just sort of grew around the "I'll provide food for you and your progenitors if you have sex with me" contract that's existed since the beginning. Yup, can't have any homos invalidating the practicality of that institution.

If you're going to offer critiques of marriage as an institution, why pick a side? I say homosexuals have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us.

__________________
first.am

RVCA

You're just a bigot then. Do you acknowledge that homosexuality is not a choice? That homosexuals are "born that way", so to speak?

Not to mention that the whole "marriage as a benefit to society" argument falls apart when given the fact that over half of all marriages in the U.S. end in divorce.

hip hop bunny hop

link <---there is no shortage of feminists who would argue the very opposite. John Waters makes fun of them in "This Filthy World", in fact. But, to your point, I'd say for most it isn't a conscious decision.

__________________
Have mercy on the poor.

Guybrush

It's not just the case of marriage, it's also a hurdle in the way of gay tolerance. In a country like the United States, the gay population is pretty huge. Do you really think discriminating against them is a good way of doing things? You may think of it as a trivial matter, but it really isn't and I don't think a gay population denied marriage would think it trivial either. Ending homophobia in your country could be net very beneficial for the state, even if there are minor trade-offs here and there.

In our western society, the idea that you could or should discriminate against people for the way they are biologically is also fairly outdated - and has been since the end of the second world war. It's largely considered immoral. The US is a democracy and so the morality of the state and government is reflected in the US population and vice versa. More morale and more compassion is also good for the nation because it makes people more cooperative, more likely to follow rules etc. Discriminating against gay people would set a horrible example.

Have you read any morale theory? Take John Rawls for example, he wrote that when deciding how things should be in a state, rational people should have to decide on how things would be in that state as if they did not know what role they would have in it. For example, they would have to decide rules for the US not knowing whether they themselves would live in the nation as an afro-american, asian, caucasian, handicapped, gay, straight, war veteran, etc. It's not meant literally, but as a mental excercise which is to prevent our selfishness from ruling a nation. To me, it sounds like something you should give a try.

By the way, I think that a nation should increase the quality of life for it's people. If you should choose between a population with more money, but who are less happy or a population with less money, but who are more happy, I think the latter is generally better. What do you think a nation should do for it's people?

__________________
Something Completely Different

Janszoon

You haven't made the case that society would be subsidizing it. You haven't made the case that it doesn't benefit society. You haven't even made the case that all rights and privileges granted to citizens should be based on how much it benefits society. In essence, your argument is just bigotry trying, and failing, to masquerade as dispassionate logic.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

TheBig3

I can see you're currently banned, but I do hope you return to answer this:

How doesn't Homosexuality benefit society when we currently sit on the brink of over-population. Statistically, children are a drain on resources universally.

__________________
I've moved to a new address