Nor does opposite-sex marriage affect how many children are created. Married or not, people can still procreate.

I thought you were arguing about raising children.

The amount of papers on this topic out there are so numerous I really don't feel like going over every single detail, however your making quite a few jumps in your assumptions.

1. The State wants a future generation that is well educated, not prone to crime, and able to help the productivity of the country in a completely non-moral sense.

2.Teenagers or any other unstable relationship giving birth does not create such members of society. They A. don't have the finacial backing or time for a complete education (not talking about Harvard here) and B. the more 'unwanted' children the higher the crime rate.

3. Any reasonable person in charge of thier own finances can see that if they are not legally married, the finacial burden to raise children and give them a complete education and to make them feel wanted is just basically not worth the time or money or energy. Only a moral or religious obligation would make them do such an activity. Since the State can not make laws regarding religion, making assuptions about religious incentives isn't really an option.

None of that has any bearing on gay marriage, but I don't see how giving such incentives to a couple who by definition can not have thier own children and are less likely to even want to have children helps the state at all. Sure some gay couples adopt, but not enough to make homes for all the unwanted children, and as you remove the incentives for wanted children, you create more unwanted children (assuming the birthrate stays fairly level)

So you are basically saying that:

a ) allowing additional families to support unwanted children is useless because they cannot support all unwanted children, and

b ) those extra families (that cannot biologically create children, ie a sink) are going to somehow increase the number of unwanted children?

umm, gay couples can allreay adopt children and get economic incentives for doing so.

the major burden that children place on a family are hospital and general health costs, a long with food and diapers, but Marriage laws don't affect food and diapers.

I'm saying that the institution of Marriage was created for a reason, and changing the definition of that instution makes the reason null. why? Because now relativley smart people who have no moral or religious obligation can get great tax breaks and yet contribute nothing more to the society than they would have if they did not have that tax break.

However, a man and a woman living together will ineveitably lead to a process of making children, and if the government is there to remind them through incentives that it won't be too much of a burden to allow that process to take place, then there is less reason for them to not aide in the growth of the society.


you keep on trying to make this an if then statement, but its actually a prevention of a if then don't statement.

In Australia, we cannot adopt. And I have no idea what you are arguing in relation to children... you start by saying marriage is about raising children... but not really raising children rather creating them... but not really creating them rather financially supporting them... but not really financially supporting them because that doesn't have to do with marriage.

And your assertion about same-sex marriage leading to fraud and abuse of 'tax breaks' is rather ridiculous. Any pair of people with opposite genders can do exactly that as it is now. And I think it is flawed to believe that a man and woman living together leads inevitably to child-producing intercourse.

I'm just not sure what your primary argument is against gay marriage, I guess. Could you clarify?

I'll try a bad analogy.

Law A was made for reason B.

People now want to change Law A so that reason B no longer applies.


I know people think its just ridculous, but I really don't see why once a line is removed that anything should be out of boudaries.


Also, I did not say a man and woman living together makes child-bearing intercourse, I said it leads to intercourse, which will more often than not, NOT lead to children unless an incentive exists for those children to be raised.

why would I choose to live with a member of the opposite sex for a tax break when I can do the same thing with a good buddy of mine of the same sex?

What do you believe reason B is today, Daganev?

Because not everyone has best buddy's of the same sex? So what is the difference between the two cases?

The same reason it has always been, a Strong productive and well educated future generation, that has close connections to the culture and history of the place they are raised.

huh?

One case has a 0% possiblity of B happening, the other case has a more than 0% possiblity of B happening.

why should it be illegal for a Brother and Sister to get married if they never plan on having a physical relationship? Why should it be illegal for 3 people to get married to eachother?

The answer "thats gross" is just biggoted.

Where did that idea come from? I've never seen any indication that same-sex couples have any less of a desire to raise children than any other couple. Just because they can't have children which are genetically related to both of them (And they're working on that, for women at least), doesn't mean they're less likely to want children at all. By that logic, people who are infertile shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Law A was made so that people who want to raise children have economic benefits for doing so, by what you've been saying, yes? Now people want to change Law A so that more people can raise children. What's the problem?

EDIT: *peer* This conversation's moving too fast for my poor typing abilities.

EDIT 2: Three people should be able to get married, but I don't think most of society even nearly agrees about that yet, so I'm not arguing it. Two brothers or two sisters should also be able to, because the problem with incest is that it produces children with genetic bad things, as I understand it. Getting married implies a sexual relationship, which is why a brother and sister can't.

The desire to sleep with someone comes from the part of your brain that wants to procreate. Who you find attractive is the person your biology tells you would make a healthy mate to create healthy children.

In America atleast, gay couples allready have the ability to adopt children and economic incentives exist to make that possiblity happen. I'm not sure what Marriage laws are going to do to change that situation.

The biggest economic burden is the actual production of new life into the family.

There is a similarity between Christians and Jews, and thats that they do believe.
Well the ones that are still jewish, and christian anyway, because sometimes I hear the Jewish people are a race, aswell as a religion. Anyhow. If I can be frank, I really do not believe that what you stated as your reason, is the definite truth behind your statements, but then again, I really don't know what you think so I can't make any serious statements. However, I believe that we should at least allow homosexual couples to be married, for say... 20 years, in some small country, like New Zealand, or maybe Poland.. Then decide for other countries. Although that kind of sucks for same-sex couples at the moment. Gosh it really is a hard decision.

Not necessarily. It's also telling you who would be a good person to bond with, from a survival point of view if we're going with evolutionary instincts. For example, it's good to sleep with the strongest warrior of your tribe, even if you aren't going to produce children, because they'll feel closer to you and be nicer to you and maybe protect you from that large mammoth that's charging towards you angrily and you can't fight off yourself.

Tarquin: Try Canada, or the Netherlands...

Really!! the netherlands, wow thats great. If a gay couple went there and got married, would they be married? In other area's. Or you know at least they could feel as if they are married.

I imagine you have to be a citizen to get married, and it wouldn't be recognised in other countries. Same as in some countries, where interracial marriages aren't recognised.

Christians, Jews, Muslims are generally placed together. Would you say that Muslims are just another sect of Christianity? Jews and Muslims have much more in common than Jews and Christians do.

Traditional Chinese families and followers of the Shinto religion, and Hindus also all have the same opinion on this issue.

If my opinions of what American and civil law should be were based on my religious beliefs, I would be saying that people should be arrested if they break thier wedding vows or commit adultery, and nobody should be allowed to date people unless they have some intention of thinking about marriage, but I don't think that because there is a clear seperation in American law and established religions.

I think you are talking about government and society, not marriage.

But regardless, same-sex marriage does not detract from this, and in most cases supports it.

the Netherlands has a declining birth rate.