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

[Catalyst6]

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.

My mind, it reels.

You do realize that two people can live together without being married, right? If someone is gay and not in utter denial about it then they are going to live with someone of the same gender. Not allowing them to be legally married isn't going to make them have babies with someone they don't love, they'll just stay together as "partners" or whatever the PC term is these days.

Homosexual people are people. Just like heterosexual people are people. People should be able to marry people and have all the benefits associated with such a legal thing.

 

[MinchMan]

The main argument of this thread is that homosexuals can't have children. Well, what about the countless amount of children that have no homes? The children in adoption agencies going from home to home, never actually making a lasting connection- eventually going into a family setting that they can understand after all the neglect. Possibly a gang. Most likely a gang. I have had a lot of friends that were in orphanages and such, and most of them became gangsters. A lot of them are also dead because of it.

Oooh, what a powerful nation. Can't keep its own people from killing one another.

Gay people deserve the right to get married. It doesn't matter how deep you delve into the morals or the train of logic behind it- this ridiculous strain of homophobia present in America has got to end. "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible; with liberty and justice FOR ALL." You can't nitpick.

 

[BlackWidower]

The country'll be less powerful, good, then maybe it's military'll stop spreading out across the planet like 1940s Germany...yeah, I went there.

Heheheh, like military spending is the first thing on the chopping block in a recession...

You're right, it's more likely to be something frivolous, like scientific development, that can save lives. But I was talking about a "less powerful" country, not a poorer country, and a population drop would not cause a recession.

 

[Criquefreak]

I think I'll contribute something a brother of mine stated: "If you're adding labels to whether or not people get the same rights, you're doing it wrong."

These things are considered 'Human' Rights, after all.

 

[Fishyash]

I don't really feel that I am under any obligation to procreate, regardless of my sexuality.

Birth control exists for a reason, and it is because in more developed nations we are no longer obligated to make kids.

If we were so desperate for children, we wouldn't have adoption centers, we wouldn't have condoms or pills.

Honestly the 'gay people don't make kids' argument is a ridiculous one.

 

[omega 616]

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

What benefits, I assume monetary, are wedded people entitled to that that none married aren't? I thought it was all "only family can visit at the hospital" and "here is your dead wife/husbands stuff".

Now what you are failing to take into account is the work gay people do, they obviously have a job so they are paying income tax, they are buying stuff so they are paying VAT, (I am not sure about USA but) they are living in a house so they pay council tax, they might drive so they pay road tax.

As for lowering the population, are you serious?

Spoiler: population from 1790 - 2011

babies are constantly getting pumped out! Hell, there is a serious concern about over population ... a person doesn't just take up 1 SQ foot, food needs to be made for them, a place to live etc

 

[Vault101]

gay marrage will mean less birth?

how the fuck does that make sense?...oh wait..IT DOESNT

its not going to affect the amount of people who are gay or hetero

 

[red the fister]

Edit: In response to all the people going "It helps with overpopulation!": You're all insane. The world is in absolutely no danger of overpopulation. With our current methods of resource usage, we could reliably sustain twice the world's current population. More if we refine those methods. We do not have a massive deficit of resources, and there is a lot of untapped land in the Americas, Africa and some parts of Asia with resources we simply don't use. We are in no danger of running out.

Even if you are correct, which I doubt you are. According to some estimations world population will be 11 billion at year 2050. So not very far of your estimation of twice the world current population.

So yes overpopulation will be real problem quite soon. Already over 1 billion people are undernourished. http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/20568/icode/

If the world don't make enough food for current human population, what makes you think twice that won't be a problem.

it's not that the world can't produce enough food.
in america, and the rest of the first-world, malnutrition comes from poor diet and the over-abundance of calorie-heavy, nutrition-light foods a.k.a Junk Food.
in the third-world nations malnutrition is a direct result of the corrupt governments and an inability/lack of desire to get healthful foods to the poorest.

putting corn in the gas tank doesn't help matters and neither does paying farm-owners to let fields lay fallow (to keep the price of food up)


TD;LR? quit being lazy and go read something

 

[Something Amyss]

it's not that the world can't produce enough food.
in america, and the rest of the first-world, malnutrition comes from poor diet and the over-abundance of calorie-heavy, nutrition-light foods a.k.a Junk Food.
in the third-world nations malnutrition is a direct result of the corrupt governments and an inability/lack of desire to get healthful foods to the poorest.

putting corn in the gas tank doesn't help matters and neither does paying farm-owners to let fields lay fallow (to keep the price of food up)


TD;LR? quit being lazy and go read something

Not to mention the fact that we eat disproportionately high amounts of meat. Meat which usually involves large amounts of other crops to feed, and the expansion of which requires us to clear even more area, often cutting further into other crops.

 

[Theta]

Not every couple that gets married automatically starts popping out kids like they just advanced to the next tech level. Likewise, a couple getting married isn't a prerequisite for having kids. Just my two cents, or maybe I'm saying it because I'm an ungodly bastard.

 

[willis888]

In response to the title:
Negative.
It is not moral to oppose it.

 

[Waaghpowa]

I didn't see it in anyone elses posts, but I will say it anyway.

From what I understand, the original intention of marriage was not to procreate, but as a financial arrangement. Traditionally families would have their children marry so that they may share land and resources as one big family, thereby bettering all their lives. Even today, some marriages come with dowries wherein the amount of money(doesn't necessarily have to be money) is decided on before the wedding.

Just throwing that out there.

 

[Seekster]

Oy why isnt this in the Religion & Politics forum? Send it down to us!

 

[Ragnarok185]

isn't Earth already over populated?. besides humans are like leeches, feeding off our planet. I say let gay marriage through.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

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.

Soooo Woman who cannot have children due to complications such as Cervical Cancer should not be allowed to marry either then? What? That's what your argument is trying to say here. 'If you cannot procreate and produce children, your marriage is just a burden on the government. Despite the fact that you pay taxes just like everyone else.' Why should they not reap the benefits of marriage because they don't have children? Not to mention that there is more then one way to get a child in today's age. Invetro Fertilization, Adoption, surrogate mothers, etc etc etc.

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

No, all 2 of those reasons are wrong and the top one isn't even the main reason why people want gay marriage legalized. The income of the state is paid for by the taxes, the benefits we receive are paid for by taxes that we pay. Marriage doesn't mean you stop paying taxes and less population? You act like those homosexual couples don't exist until marriage comes into play or that children are only born through marriage and I will say this again, they can and often do give birth to children through a surrogate mother or invetro fertilization.

And the top reason isn't the top priority. The priority are the numerous legal status' that come WITH marriage. Access to your partners social secruity upon death, ability to see them in the hospital, joint tax relief, joint ownership, etc etc etc.

Now, how do we weigh the happiness of a couple versus the losses which our state will suffer....

Simple, they won't lose anything that they would lose per every heterosexual 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.

........ You do realize homosexuals don't work that way right?

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?

I said it before and I'll say it again, its not about happiness. Its about the benefits that come with marriage. If I was gay and I had an intimate partner, I'd rather not be forced to pay a Lawyer every time they get sick and go to the hospital just so I could see them.

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.

See above.

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.

...Are you seriously suggesting that homosexuals will lead to the downfall of the Economy when its already in a shitty position? People don't just show up and have an affect on the economy and 'power' (And I use quotes because its not defined by population. If that was the case, India would be a world powerhouse instead of a country filled with poverty at every corner.)

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

Closer inspection of this argument reveals that you're buying into religious and very untrue propaganda and are twisting words and arguments around in a vain attempt to say that gay marriage should not be legalized.

Please, take a class in an economics before you start spouting the possible collapse the economy due to gay marriage.

 

[Nergy]

Did you make this thread to see if your mind could be changed or are do you basically just want to preach your warped sense of reality?

I'm sure a number of people have said this, but if procreation is important to marry; infertile couples can't get married. No matter which way you pitch it, it doesn't make sense to oppose gay marriage.

 

[pppppppppppppppppp]

"2) Less expected income for the state per year"
"...legalized gay marriage should lead to more gay persons."

I fail to understand those two "truths".

How exactly being married means less income to the state per year? Also, last time I checked being gay wasnt some kind of hobby that people chose because it was popular. How dies legalized marriage lead to more gay people?

I'm new to these forums so i have to ask. Do you gain something by opening a highly discused thread? (some forums do that) If this one also does it then we know why the OP made this thread.

You get a little badge when your thread hits a certain number of views/replies, and it's usually topics like this that do it. I got a badge for a 1,000 post topic from posting a thread about the double standard regarding statutory rape (i.e. when it's a man and a teenage girl, he's evil and deserves twenty years, but when it's a [hot] woman and a teenage boy, just give the kid a medal and move on)

Let's hope that's why, although I doubt it since no one gives a shit about badges anyway. If that's not why, I'll have to pull out my triple /facepalm)