Give me some arguments why homosexuality is wrong and should be declared illegal.

[Atomic Playboy]

The vast majority of straight marriages can and do produce children. The cost to police the outliers outweighs the benefit.

This is distinct from homosexual relationships, which by biological incapacity cannot produce children.

Stop saying "produce children." The point of benefits is not for the production of children, it's for the raising of children. And when it comes to raising children, gay couples can do that; in fact, many already do. I think if you continue to maintain the argument that marriage benefits exist for the benefit of raising children but you refuse to extend those benefits to gay couples who already have children, you have to acknowledge that the children are not actually your primary concern; treating gay couples as inferior to straight couples is. You hide behind children to justify your bigotry to yourself, but it breaks down when you support benefits going to one group of children but not others based on the sexual orientation of the parents.

 

[Atreus21]

Not all straight couples can produce children "naturally". What do you propose should happen to their marriages in your "No SSM marriages" utopia?

No, but the overwhelming majority of them can. And trying to separate those who factually can and those who factually cannot is cost-prohibitive.

 

[alzan]

No, but the overwhelming majority of them can. And trying to separate those who factually can and those who factually cannot is cost-prohibitive.

The ones who can, do they want to? My wife and I married with no intention of producing children, should our marriage be illegal? Lots of couples get married that have no intention of producing/raising future taxpayers; are they to be denied the opportunity to be married?

 

[Atreus21]

Stop saying "produce children." The point of benefits is not for the production of children, it's for the raising of children.

Then that's where we disagree.

And when it comes to raising children, gay couples can do that; in fact, many already do.

I'm sure they do. For that matter, I'm sure any arrangement, or no arrangement at all, of people could do it. Raising children is only half of the picture.

I think if you continue to maintain the argument that marriage benefits exist for the benefit of raising children but you refuse to extend those benefits to gay couples who already have children, you have to acknowledge that the children are not actually your primary concern; treating gay couples as inferior to straight couples is. You hide behind children to justify your bigotry to yourself, but it breaks down when you support benefits going to one group of children but not others based on the sexual orientation of the parents.

So you're accusing me of hiding my true motive. Your call, but you ought to refute the substance of the argument.

 

[Atreus21]

The ones who can, do they want to? My wife and I married with no intention of producing children, should our marriage be illegal? Lots of couples get married that have no intention of producing/raising future taxpayers; are they to be denied the opportunity to be married?

True, but that doesn't mean minds don't change, and without mind-reading technology, society can't police that. Again, it's not worth the cost to police every single subcategory of straight couple who might not have children.

 

[SlowSpyder]

True, but that doesn't mean minds don't change, and without mind-reading technology, society can't police that. Again, it's not worth the cost to police every single subcategory of straight couple who might not have children.

I'm still not clear on what having children has to do with marriage. Many people have children while not being married. Many married couples don't or can't have children. You still haven't said if you think my mother's second marriage should be valid (she cannot have children, got married).

 

[alzan]

True, but that doesn't mean minds don't change, and without mind-reading technology, society can't police that. Again, it's not worth the cost to police every single subcategory of straight couple who might not have children.

Should all heterosexual couples that intend to marry sign a document that they will, at some point in their marriage, have at least one child? And if they don't have one or more children what penalties should be applied?

Off topic but immigration produces taxpayers as well.

I'm still not clear on what having children has to do with marriage. Many people have children while not being married. Many married couples don't or can't have children. You still haven't said if you think my mother's second marriage should be valid (she cannot have children, got married).

You won't get a straight answer from him, he's standing high and mighty on his little cloud of prejudice and discrimination, and the oxygen is mighty sparse up there.

 

[Kadarin]

True, but that doesn't mean minds don't change, and without mind-reading technology, society can't police that. Again, it's not worth the cost to police every single subcategory of straight couple who might not have children.

The argument that "it's immoral for an infertile heterosexual couple to get married, but we'll allow it because it's too hard to enforce against" is even more mind-numbingly stupid than "homosexuality is unnatural". Really, it is.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

So you're accusing me of hiding my true motive. Your call, but you ought to refute the substance of the argument.

I already did. Your argument boils down to misusing statistics to assign benefits in the name of reproduction, but it's completely nonsensical in its application.

Couple A: An 80 year old man and 80 year old woman who had a hysterectomy in her 40s.
Couple B: A 30 year old woman and 30 year old woman with an infant biological child from a previous relationship.

By your logic, we should let Couple A get married and take advantage of benefits that exist specifically for propagating the species because they are heterosexual even though they have a zero percent chance of biologically reproducing with each other, but we should deny those exact same benefits to Couple B because even though they already have a child that those benefits could help with, they cannot biologically reproduce with each other. There's no logical consistency. You claim to be in favor of letting all straights marry because it would be too much work to figure out whether or not they actually would have kids... but extending those benefits to gays who may or may not have kids is suddenly some unconscionable expenditure? If you're going to use children as the basis for your argument, at least be consistent with it and accept that some gay couples have kids and some straight couples don't.

 

[Atreus21]

I'm still not clear on what having children has to do with marriage.

As I said in response to soulcougher, society incentivizes marriage on the basis that they tend to produce children.

Many people have children while not being married.

True, but they're not married. The benefits of marriage that gay advocates seek doesn't apply to those who aren't married. Secondly, married people are much more likely to produce children than unmarried people.

Many married couples don't or can't have children.

Most do.

You still haven't said if you think my mother's second marriage should be valid (she cannot have children, got married).

I think it should be valid and here's why. Consider the apparatus society would need in deploy to police marriage to the extent that people like your mother would be excluded. The civil servant who rejected her marriage license would have to know that she had a hysterectomy in her past, which if your mother didn't disclose, would only be known by having access to your mother's medical records. Setting up a statewide or countrywide database to track people's surgeriess solely for the purpose of excluding the tiny minority of women who have hysterectomies is a high price to pay for the benefit of guaranteeing that only people guaranteed to produce children get married.

If you're looking for a gotcha, here's one. Elderly couples. I'll admit that my logic might exclude elderly straight couples from marrying.

 

[Moonbeam]

The vast majority of straight marriages can and do produce children. The cost to police the outliers outweighs the benefit.

This is distinct from homosexual relationships, which by biological incapacity cannot produce children.

Marriage isn't about sex, bigot, it's about love. The sex drive and the capacity to love are not the same thing. Have the decency to imagine that if gays can't experience the same kind of sexual arousal that you do, they can experience the same feelings of love. Have the decency to see that your bigotry is a program that can make life miserable for others. You can't help it that you were turned into a bigot by the circumstances of your upbringing, but you don't have to accept that as your final state. You are wrong in your bigotry and you won't die if you figure that out. There a good life outside your program.

 

[Moonbeam]

As I said in response to soulcougher, society incentivizes marriage on the basis that they tend to produce children.



True, but they're not married. The benefits of marriage that gay advocates seek doesn't apply to those who aren't married. Secondly, married people are much more likely to produce children than unmarried people.



Most do.



I think it should be valid and here's why. Consider the apparatus society would need in deploy to police marriage to the extent that people like your mother would be excluded. The civil servant who rejected her marriage license would have to know that she had a hysterectomy in her past, which if your mother didn't disclose, would only be known by having access to your mother's medical records. Setting up a statewide or countrywide database to track people's surgeriess solely for the purpose of excluding the tiny minority of women who have hysterectomies is a high price to pay for the benefit of guaranteeing that only people guaranteed to produce children get married.

If you're looking for a gotcha, here's one. Elderly couples. I'll admit that my logic might exclude elderly straight couples from marrying.

Wonderful, we can let Gays marry with they get old. Careful the camel doesn't get it's nose under your tent and bring down the whole thing.

 

[Atreus21]

Should all heterosexual couples that intend to marry sign a document that they will, at some point in their marriage, have at least one child?

No, because most couples do this without prodding.

And if they don't have one or more children what penalties should be applied?

None, because that's ridiculous. How and more importantly when would the state apply the penalty? After menopause? The propensity for married couples to game the system would be huge. Get married, then divorce as soon as the state starts making inquiries? Then we'd have the state suing recent childless divorcees on grounds that they deliberately gamed the system. All this effort would be more costly than simply sanctioning all straight marriage and letting people reproduce on their own terms.

Now. If suddenly a majority of straight couples stopped producing children, I can see penalizing on this basis.

You won't get a straight answer from him, he's standing high and mighty on his little cloud of prejudice and discrimination, and the oxygen is mighty sparse up there.

Gosh, despite my smugness, bigotry, and oxygen deprivation, I gave a straight answer!

 

[bshole]

Why not just assign the benefits to whoever is raising the children irrespective of marriage status?

 

[Atreus21]

The argument that "it's immoral for an infertile heterosexual couple to get married, but we'll allow it because it's too hard to enforce against" is even more mind-numbingly stupid than "homosexuality is unnatural". Really, it is.

I haven't once brought up immorality. I said that it's not worth the state's resources to police straight couples for the truly infertile.

 

[brycejones]

I haven't once brought up immorality. I said that it's not worth the state's resources to police straight couples for the truly infertile.

LOL, are you really reading what you're typing?

 

[Atreus21]

Why not just assign the benefits to whoever is raising the children irrespective of marriage status?

Well, I'm pretty sure society does give benefits to people who raise children. I think the child credit on federal tax returns, for example, applies to anyone, married or not, with a child who is a dependent. My argument is that marriage is intended by society to sanction couples likely to produce children as well as raise them.

 

[Atreus21]

LOL, are you really reading what you're typing?

...yeah...I think so...?

 

[Atreus21]

I already did. Your argument boils down to misusing statistics to assign benefits in the name of reproduction, but it's completely nonsensical in its application.

Couple A: An 80 year old man and 80 year old woman who had a hysterectomy in her 40s.
Couple B: A 30 year old woman and 30 year old woman with an infant biological child from a previous relationship.

By your logic, we should let Couple A get married and take advantage of benefits that exist specifically for propagating the species because they are heterosexual even though they have a zero percent chance of biologically reproducing with each other, but we should deny those exact same benefits to Couple B because even though they already have a child that those benefits could help with, they cannot biologically reproduce with each other. There's no logical consistency. You claim to be in favor of letting all straights marry because it would be too much work to figure out whether or not they actually would have kids... but extending those benefits to gays who may or may not have kids is suddenly some unconscionable expenditure? If you're going to use children as the basis for your argument, at least be consistent with it and accept that some gay couples have kids and some straight couples don't.

I admitted in a previous post that this logic might exclude elderly couples from marrying. But I wonder how often the elderly get married. I can think of some anecdotal examples, but I'd bet the statistics on it yield that it's quite uncommon.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

clearly there are zero legitimate reasons to criminalize homosexuality, mods, please lock this dumb thread finally.

 

[bshole]

Well, I'm pretty sure society does give benefits to people who raise children. I think the child credit on federal tax returns, for example, applies to anyone, married or not, with a child who is a dependent. My argument is that marriage is intended by society to sanction couples likely to produce children as well as raise them.

Yea I think that is what could change. Actually create a sanction for people raising children and that excludes anybody without children. Easy-peasy. That accomplishes the mission much better don't you think?

 

[MrPickins]

...yeah...I think so...?

Then you realize that your argument is hogwash, right?

 

[Atreus21]

Then you realize that your argument is hogwash, right?

...no...I don't realize that...?

 

[Atreus21]

Yea I think that is what could change. Actually create a sanction for people raising children and that excludes anybody without children. Easy-peasy. That accomplishes the mission much better don't you think?

Don't we already have that? Raising children gets you some benefits already.

 

[alzan]

No, because most couples do this without prodding.



None, because that's ridiculous. How and more importantly when would the state apply the penalty? After menopause? The propensity for married couples to game the system would be huge. Get married, then divorce as soon as the state starts making inquiries? Then we'd have the state suing recent childless divorcees on grounds that they deliberately gamed the system. All this effort would be more costly than simply sanctioning all straight marriage and letting people reproduce on their own terms.

Now. If suddenly a majority of straight couples stopped producing children, I can see penalizing on this basis.



Gosh, despite my smugness, bigotry, and oxygen deprivation, I gave a straight answer!

Well I guess the only left to do is get your "ideas" about denying benefits to SSM married couples codified into law; should be a simple matter to convince the local, state and federal governments that they'll have no problem restricting equal rights and protections that are guaranteed to all citizens.

I'm sure whatever types of answers you give your smugness and bigotry come shining through.