The problems with homosexuality

Guybrush · 09-08-2011, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hip hop bunny hop

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

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the idea that you could or should discriminate against people for the way they are biologically is also fairly outdated - and has been since the end of the second world war.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

**Janszoon** · 09-08-2011, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hip hop bunny hop

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

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.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 09-08-2011, 12:10 PM

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

Buzzov*en · 09-08-2011, 12:24 PM

I'm loiving this more and more.

hip hop bunny hop · 09-08-2011, 03:29 PM

Quote:

You haven't made the case that society would be subsidizing it.

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

Quote:

When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy.

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.

Quote:

You haven't made the case that it doesn't benefit society

I certainly have:

Quote:

The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.

&

Quote:

One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian’s sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce.

&

Quote:

Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.

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

Quote:

There is a clear difference between calling yourself a lesbian just to identify with a social movement, and being physically stimulated by the same sex. You seem to agree, then, that the latter is not something an individual chooses.

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

Quote:

Alison Garthwaite was another of the authors, and she stands by the original argument. "Sexuality is not determined by a gene which we are born with," she says. "It can change over time, and is determined by both your circumstances and the choices you make."

Quote:

So then it would seem you're willingly discriminating against homosexuals for something you acknowledge was not their choice. Doesn't that make you just as bad as all the other racist and misogynist mother****ers out there? Are you okay with identifying yourself as a homophobe and a bigot?

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.

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

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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?

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.

Mykonos · 09-08-2011, 05:03 PM

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.

Pixies · 09-08-2011, 07:34 PM

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

TheBig3 · 09-13-2011, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hip hop bunny hop

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

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.

RVCA · 09-13-2011, 02:48 PM

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

TheBig3 · 09-13-2011, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RVCA

A lot of people became very happy.

Give that 5 years.

09-08-2011, 12:10 PM	#763 (permalink)
Urban Hat€monger ? The Sexual Intellectual Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Somewhere cooler than you Posts: 18,605	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 __________________ Urb's RYM Stuff Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.

09-08-2011, 12:24 PM	#764 (permalink)
Buzzov*en Anxiety Hangover Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Gardenia Posts: 501	I'm loiving this more and more. __________________ Save the environment, shoot yourself in the head. And when there is no hope I'll smoke some crack I'll shoot some dope.

09-08-2011, 05:03 PM	#766 (permalink)
Mykonos AWhatup Ganache? Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 381	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. __________________ 'Not that Becktionary, the Rhyming Becktionary!'- Bender Bending Rodriguez

09-08-2011, 07:34 PM	#767 (permalink)
Pixies Groupie Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: New York, New York Posts: 11	this thread is both educational and opinionated with people i totally disagree with...i am not so much confused as delirious

09-13-2011, 02:48 PM	#769 (permalink)
RVCA （￣ー￣） Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 3,270	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