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

Logiclul

New member
Sep 18, 2011
293
0
0
Marriage is the legal act of connecting two people as a unit, and typically leading to them living their lives together. A common byproduct is children, which is the real goal here. For the human race to go on, for the country to grow and become more powerful, people need to procreate. This is where gay marriage comes into play.

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.

So, where should we stand? To support legal gay marriage is to support the following:

1) Happiness for the couple (or rather, more happiness than not legal gay marriage presumably)

2) Less expected income for the state per year

3) Less population (ergo power) for the nation

Now, how do we weigh the happiness of a couple versus the losses which our state will suffer per marriage? Before I do that, I want to say that while those who are gay have already supposedly aided toward 3, and perhaps 2, it is encouraging of the gay culture to support gay marriage legally. So in the long run, legalized gay marriage should lead to more gay persons.

Anyway, consider the happiness of two gay people who are informally married but not legally married. Are they sad that they are not married legally to where their happiness is less than neutral overall? I think not, but that is a point which is tough to argue. How much more happiness could 'official' marriage possibly bring?

The loss in income, population, and power is best measured like this:
A google search tells me that there are 307 million persons in the United States currently.
For every 1 million gay couples, there are 2 million gays, and 2 million people which will not procreate.
I recall hearing that about 5% of the nation was openly gay. So, 15.35 million gays are estimated in America (rough rough estimate). Can you see why the government may have problems, why we as people perhaps should have problems, with this many people (remember, legalized marriage would seem to imply the rate at which gays are open will increase) not procreating? This may be a serious (buzzword I know; if you need a more technical proposition, I'd say large) blow to the United States' power and economy.

Other factors are things such as expected good a baby will do and how much help they would be in the world in terms of national power etc, but that is difficult to figure when making a decision on the matter. It is also not a variable which would seem to carry much weight in the decision as well, as to assume that there would be enough babies which would cause more problems if those who were gay were straight such that our nation faces even greater and steeper problems, is to assume potential collapse of the United States. To assume that would be pointless, as it is not a conclusion worth considering.

tl'dr human ethics and morals seem to imply that we should allow gay marriage, however on closer inspection, this may not be the case
 

2HF

New member
May 24, 2011
630
0
0
Denying gay people the right to marry isn't going to make them straight and therefor isn't going to make them have children.

Also the world is overpopulated as it is. We don't need any more people.
 

Abedeus

New member
Sep 14, 2008
7,412
0
0
More gay people = less births.
Less births = less people.

Less people = smaller unemployment and fewer overpopulated areas.

Also, from what I remember, gay people spend and earn on average more than straights. Or at least spend. Probably cause they don't have kids to raise and throw money into.
 

mitchell271

New member
Sep 3, 2010
1,457
0
0
"If you're still railing [not sure how to spell it] loudly against gay marriage, consider your own sexuality. Fag." - brentalfloss

Last I checked, the world is already overpopulated. Don't see any problem with homosexuals marrying.
 

Awexsome

Were it so easy
Mar 25, 2009
1,549
0
0
I don't know but that seems incredibly immoral reason to ban gay marriage to me. Denying people their love and marriage because it may cost more money.

Plus the birth argument is laughable. You have heard of insemination haven't you? Adoption? Population growth is never an issue of being to little. It's always one of there being too much. If anything if it even did decrease growth (it wouldnt) it would be a good thing.
 

BiscuitTrouser

Elite Member
May 19, 2008
2,860
0
41
Logiclul said:
3) Less population (ergo power) for the nation
You fail to appreciate that:

Gay people do not usually have kids

The legalisation of gay marriage will not wipe out "closet homosexuality", the people who are gay will still have kids by accident as before. No change.

You also dont account for these gay couples adopting together and turning a kid who might have turned bad from the terrible adoption system into a working member of society and cutting down on expenses for running these adoption centres. Marriage is also expensive and thus fuels the economy and attracts tourism/immigration from other states/countries that dont allow gay marriage.

You also fail to account for the fact that lesbians and gays have children through IVF and other means thus adding to the population.

You also fail to take account of the steadily increasing population already of the globe.

And massive unemployment.

Also happier people (IE, NOT REPRESSED) work harder.

This is a very generalised view that doesnt take account of any of the fine print.
 

101flyboy

New member
Jul 11, 2010
649
0
0
Oh look. Another "gays don't deserve marriage because they don't make babies" argument.

This line of defense got LAUGHED out of court during the Prop 8 trial. It's probably the worst argument in opposition of marriage equality, even more so than the insufferable "if we allow same-sex couples marriage, then pedophiles will marry." Solely because people like the OP actually believe they're not hateful, and therefore sane. Almost embarrassing.
 

Spectral Dragon

New member
Jun 14, 2011
283
0
0
... How do you reach the conclusion that more gay marriages create more gay people? The only difference would mean a higher percentage of gays are open about it. Sexuality is WAY more than only societal pressures.

Why not treat people like people? It's not like gay people would have more kids because they aren't married. The world has plenty of unwanted children too, orphans and whatnot. Sexuality not affecting parenting, married gay couples who adopt would increase the work force, compared to... As far as I know, it's hard to adopt as single.

Also, people tend to get kids, but usually not just because they marry, as there are other variables involved, or am I mistaken? Does every married straight couple have kids, maybe?
 

TheDist

New member
Mar 29, 2010
200
0
0
varulfic said:
Bull. Shit.

The world is not in jeopardy of running out of children. Nor is it people's moral obligation to have children. Nor is it impossible for gay people to raise children - hello? Heard of adoption? Artificial insemination?
Bingo! As of yet I have never seen a single secular arguement agaisnt gay marriage that actualy makes sence. I don't think I ever will.

One look at how many poor kids are waiting to be adopted should be all anyone needs to look at here.
 

101flyboy

New member
Jul 11, 2010
649
0
0
It would be nice if anti-gays would admit as much instead of constantly finding reasons to justify an unjust position. At the very least, anti-gays could use a little clarity and consistency. Seems like you all don't really know why you're against it yourselves.
 

Darkmantle

New member
Oct 30, 2011
1,031
0
0
BiscuitTrouser said:
Logiclul said:
3) Less population (ergo power) for the nation
You fail to appreciate that:

Gay people do not usually have kids

The legalisation of gay marriage will not wipe out "closet homosexuality", the people who are gay will still have kids by accident as before. No change.

You also dont account for these gay couples adopting together and turning a kid who might have turned bad from the terrible adoption system into a working member of society and cutting down on expenses for running these adoption centres. Marriage is also expensive and thus fuels the economy and attracts tourism/immigration from other states/countries that dont allow gay marriage.

You also fail to account for the fact that lesbians and gays have children through IVF and other means thus adding to the population.

You also fail to take account of the steadily increasing population already of the globe.

And massive unemployment.

Also happier people (IE, NOT REPRESSED) work harder.

This is a very generalised view that doesnt take account of any of the fine print.
I was going to respond, but pretty much this. Thank you for saving my fingers.

I would also like to ask you (the OP) something.

Would you say then that infertile people should not be allowed to marry as they

will not have children
would not be less happy not being "legally" married.
etc.

and you do not understand homosexuality. Allowing people to be gay does not increase the number of gays, it would increase the number of openly gay people sure, but the increase would be trivial.

And married people get many benefits from being married. The spouse is next of kin, they can be covered under each other insurance. Etc. Just because they are gay means that they shouldn't be allowed to have their loved ones taken care of?
 

Colour Scientist

Troll the Respawn, Jeremy!
Jul 15, 2009
4,722
0
0
Logiclul said:
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?
 

Belaam

New member
Nov 27, 2009
617
0
0
Logiclul said:
3) Less population (ergo power) for the nation
Are you asserting that without gay marriage, gay people would marry and procreate? I'm not even sure where to start with the problems there. But this bizarre assumption pretty much invalidates everything else you say.

I'd counter that with a search for a study on whether foster kids do better when adopted by married gay parents or when they remain in foster care until age 18, but this number three has me rolling my eyes so hard I can see my frontal lobe.

So in the long run, legalized gay marriage should lead to more gay persons.
So many problems here too. Are you arguing that gay parents have gay kids? Granted, I only know about six people with openly gay parents, but three of those kids of gay parents are married, two have had only opposite gender boy/girlfriends, and the last, I don't really know well enough to know what his preference is. So I'm not really seeing that.

How much more happiness could 'official' marriage possibly bring?
How much happiness did Brown v. Board of Education bring to black students in "separate but equal schools"? Yeah, I'm guessing quite a lot. Though if you are going purely by "happiness", there have been multiple studies that show couples who don't have children have happier marriages that those who do. So perhaps we should outlaw children?

(remember, legalized marriage would seem to imply the rate at which gays are open will increase)
How can I "remember" something that exists only in your head as a "seems to imply"?

serious (buzzword I know; if you need a more technical proposition, I'd say large
To use a technical proposition, I think you are speaking out of your arse.

our nation faces even greater and steeper problems,
Isn't one of those problems finite farmland and limited water resources? Wouldn't a decreased population help with that... assuming all the rest of the unsupported insanity you have argued is correct?

TL'DR: Your basic assumptions are so flawed as to be laughable.
 

Handbag1992

New member
Apr 20, 2009
322
0
0
What a well-organised and badly researched load of trash.

Gay marriage does nothing to change gay couples. We won't have kids whether you let us marry or not. Deal with it.

I may have just fed a troll, how unfortunate.

Zachary Amaranth said:
Thanatus1992 said:
We won't have kids whether you let us marry or not.
Speak for yourself.

Gays will have kids if they want to, regardless of what you personally want.
Allow me to re-phrase my statment, I think I was far too crude.

We are (discounting surrogates) unable to have children, and this won't change because of a ceremony.

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.

2- The Aldmeri Dominion keeps the civil war in Skyrim going because they want to weaken the Imperial Army, and prepare for another full-scale invasion.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Logiclul said:
2) Less expected income for the state per year

3) Less population (ergo power) for the nation
Neither of which are true.

So you're not only weighing happiness against two falsehoods, but happiness and civil rights against falsehoods. Awesome.
 

matoasters

New member
Jun 7, 2010
62
0
0
Bullshit. Gay marriage would not somehow create more gay people, and gay people marrying wouldn't result in less kids, although it might result in more homes for foster kids, which would be beneficial for the nation as a whole.
 

ElPatron

New member
Jul 18, 2011
2,130
0
0
I admit I stopped reading when you were talking about population.


Being married or not does not matter if you do not intend to have children. it applies to heterosexual and homosexual couples.


Don't forget that heterosexual couples are actually having less children in the Western culture.

And we are having children later, which leads to infertility cases.


Meanwhile, lots of children need to be adopted - am I the only one missing the real issue here or does the world really work with very simple generalizations that you can simply un-relate from other social, economical and cultural factors?


matoasters said:
Bullshit. Gay marriage would not somehow create more gay people, and gay people marrying wouldn't result in less kids, although it might result in more homes for foster kids, which would be beneficial for the nation as a whole.
Someone who actually thinks that the problem is not black and white! *Pheew*


Zachary Amaranth said:
Thanatus1992 said:
We won't have kids whether you let us marry or not.
Speak for yourself.

Gays will have kids if they want to, regardless of what you personally want.
The OP was talking about population growth. Population can't grow with pre-existant children.

But it's a moot point anyway, we are crowded with people in this world.