Unknown Soldier,

Are you kidding me. You honestly seem to think that Minnesota is the most homophobe place in the world. Go live in Africa, the hate of homosexuals are bigger. I mean in my native country, if you are homosexual, most people try their best not to help you and if you were beat up then many people would walk by and laugh. Uganda had attempted to legalize a law that legalize killing Homosxauls for being gay.

They EAT DA POO POO

like ice cream

Whether gays marry or not, has no affect on the birth rates of a country. I've been led to believe, that gay men are not normally in the habit of fathering children;) so whether they are married or not is really irrelevent.

Yes I am kidding you, I stated that Minnesota had homophobes that lived in shacks, you and a few other people, that is all.

I really don't know why you're bringing the African example into this debate, the USA like Western Europe are democracies, where individual rights and freedom of choice are given facts of life. The hostilities and hatreds of the developing world, should have no place within these democracies.

No matter how many times I see that, it never gets old. :laughing:

Have you ever seen the remix?

HHBH, just come out of the closet already. You'll be a lot happier for it.

OK, you've quoted from this source here: Secular case against gay marriage, but in that I haven't seen any external support for any of the points he made there whatsoever, and I'm frankly very mistrustful of that source.
This comes from the chilling conclusion to his article that reads as follows:
Here, it really just seems to collapse onto the wearisome argument that marriage between homosexuals is the first step in a deterioration of morals and the cheapening of marriage.
This, as I need not point out is a fallacy known as a "slippery slope" argument. Why? Because it relies on assuming that there will be a trend in the requests for civil rights here, and that soon people will start bending the definition of marriage further here.

Like it or not, the whole article makes an extremely controversial assumption: that love ISN'T the main reason for marriage, or at least should be ruled out of the question when MONEY is thought of.

Personally, when I get married it is because I love the other person, not because I already want children. As Unknown Soldier has very kindly pointed out, why is "propagating the population" so damn important? There's definitely no sign of decline, world overcrowding is becoming a very serious problem with food and natural resources being stretched over an increasingly large number.

I have tons more to say here, but I shall have to finish with one final observation before the strange man with the whip comes along to drag me away to that strange homoerotic wrestling match where they make us young teenagers fight naked, and that is the following:

For goodness sake, there's no suggestion made by anyone that this is going to happen. There are separate laws, such as laws against incest, which forbid them. It's showing that he's effectively putting gay marriage in the same boat as incest.

External support for what, exactly?


[QUOTE=Salami;1160659 As Unknown Soldier has very kindly pointed out, why is "propagating the population" so damn important? There's definitely no sign of decline, world overcrowding is becoming a very serious problem with food and natural resources being stretched over an increasingly large number.[/QUOTE]

If that's what you believe, why would you argue for an extension of marriage benefits to more people in society? Why not just get rid of them entirelly?

The rest of your post doesn't deal with what I said, the quotes I pulled from the article, or the general point of my post.

Correct; so, why should the rest of society subsidize their marriages?

Because, they themselves are helping to subsidize the marriages of the society that they belong to.

Huh. I won't deny it: I'm disappointed with you. I expected more than three two simple questions and a rude observation. I was hoping for some real fire and for my post to be sliced in pieces with the aid of many scholarly research papers. Even a bit of trolling would have been warmly appreciated, such telling me I ought to be at school or that I'm too young to understand. Well, here goes anyway...

I personally find a lot of the claims there to be be made out to be from US law, and that this article was stating it to be the case. For instance:
Where in US law does it say that? Where in US law does it say that "propagating society" is the most important reason for marriage? I think that for issues so important, some kind of reference would be expected.
This here doesn't give credit to what I think is marriage as a whole. It's not about money, neither is it solely for increasing the population. It's a way of publically expressing your love for another person, and starting a family. The function of the family itself isn't money either, and I don't think that offspring should be necessary for a family to be recognised.This is more like it: completely ignoring what was my critique of the article you referenced.
Come on, I'm sure there was a lot in there that was directly relevant to what you quoted, just have a bash and tell me why I'm wrong about it.
You aren't purposely forgetting that financial commitments are being made by the gay people themselves? They pay like everyone else, society doesn't have a rule that marriages ought only to be permitted if children are planned.

OK, let me ask you a question: supposing that gay marriage were to be proposed WITHOUT any form of state subsidy whatsoever. Would you still object even if you as a taxpayer weren't in any way paying for it?

Single people and non-married couples also help subsidize marriages of the society to which they belong.

They can already do this.