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society, the idea that you could or should discriminate against people for the way they are biologically is also fairly outdated - and has been since the end of the second world war.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?

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.

I don't really have anything to add to this thread and this is only a flying visit, only to say that as Hip Hop Bunny seems to think that anything that could be considered marginally to the left of Adolf Hitler is classed as liberal I'm more than happy for him to call me one.

Thanks

I'm loiving this more and more.

Does no one bother to read the links I provide? From the first one:

Anyways, any American who's had to deal with payroll taxes, federal taxes, or (god forbid) state income taxes, and the cluster**** that is insurance - knows that, yeah, married couples are subsidized.

I certainly have:

&

&

===============

Eh? They clearly believe you can change what sex you're sexually attracted to;

I'm not denying them marriage; I'm denying them state subsidies for marriage because their relationship is fundamentally infertile.

That this is somehow linked to racism is, really, quite insane. LINK - considering that 7/10 black voters in California backed proposition 8.

=========================

Again, they are not denied the right to marry. They are - in most states - denied state recognized marriage. Considering that the subsidies from state recognized marriage were put into place to benefit the single social arrangement which is not only most likely to result in children, but the social arrangement which is most beneficial to the upbringing of children, denying these benefits to gays isn't a matter of crass discrimination. It's recognizing that their relationships are fundamentally infertile, and that these subsidies exist to benefit fertile couples.

Eh? I understand the point you're driving at, but what you seem to be forgetting is that the reason homosexuals want state recognized marriage for the financial subsidies. I can understand the logic in subsidizing marriage as it frees up money to go to children; I do not understand the logic in subsidizing marriage just so homosexuals can save a buck at my expense.

I still don't acknowledge state marriages as being compensation for having children. If you have children, you receive money for them that an ordinary married couple wouldn't. And if you're against homosexuals legally marrying because they can't produce children, then you should be against sterile, HIV-strained or planned childless couples marrying. If you aren't, then there's clearly far more to your views than pure pragmatic points.

this thread is both educational and opinionated with people i totally disagree with...i am not so much confused as delirious

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.

Just look at Canada: Gay marriage was legalized across the country on July 20, 2005. Did the traditional family suddenly break apart that day? Did straight couples suddenly feel the love and meaning of their relationships drain dry? Did moms and dads start abusing their kids and clawing for divorces? Did crime rates suddenly skyrocket? Did all hell break loose on that day? Not to anyone's recollection. Did any straight marriage suddenly become meaningless, or lose its value? Did gay marriage suddenly result in fewer straight marriages? No? What did happen that day? A lot of people became very happy. A lot of people are now granted equal rights. And that's pretty much it

Give that 5 years.