Yeah, but black people don't push their adopted kids to be black if they arent
Give me one *good* reason why gay marriage should be illegal
- Thread starter Amadeus
- Start date
Edofnor
Veteran XX
*Edit* I think it's unfair for people to get married who don't want children. I think that the financial benefits were put in place, like I said, to facilitate raising children and perpetuating a family.
Polygamous societies are more violent, hence why most societies have marriage - or some equivalent - to help evenly spread the women out and prevent a large percentage of sexless bachelors. It's relevant because it's an institution that has nothing to do with gay men; it wasn't designed for them.
I have no problem with people choosing whoever they want for a healthcare power of attorney, who they live with, who they sleep with, who they bequeath their possessions to, etc. But I'm not sure they should be afforded the same financial benefits as heterosexual couples who want to raise a family.
Last edited:
StapleMammal1
Contributor
The average gay couple are so devoid of anything good that even my faggot self stays far from them.
So should it be illegal to marry if you don't want kids, or not?
Don't be retarded. Of course not. The idea is that if government benefits are applied for the benefit of child rearing, then the benefits should be extended when children are present and not on the basis of a marriage.
I don't think that the financial benefits of marriage should be afforded to people other than for raising a family.
bowl of blood
Contributor
what about real estate ramifications and the housing crisis
it's good for everyone economically speaking to encourage two people to share a home
it's good for everyone economically speaking to encourage two people to share a home
What if two people want to marry for non-financial reasons (e.g. to become each other's next of kin), and without intent to raise kids? Should that be legal?
Marriage isn't a requirement for that
It shouldn't be a question of legality.
Seriously what part of this are you not getting?
the financial angle is weird to me anyway
in this country and back home in the UK, you're afforded the same benefits/status as a married couple if you are in a legit long term relationship
plus you have the whole epidemic of gold digging whores thing with your divorce laws, more nonsense
in this country and back home in the UK, you're afforded the same benefits/status as a married couple if you are in a legit long term relationship
plus you have the whole epidemic of gold digging whores thing with your divorce laws, more nonsense
Marriage is a legal concept, of course it's a question of legality.
Should it be legal or not?
bowl of blood
Contributor
um, yeah, but marriage also isn't a requirement for having kids. the two just happen to totally randomly be statistically correlated and one just happens to totally randomly predict the other
it's called incentivization
Marriage is a legal concept, of course it's a question of legality.
Should it be legal or not?
The people you're asking are saying that marriage should not be a legal concept. If it's not, then there is no question of whether it should or should not be legal, it simply would be. There's absolutely no reason to outlaw marriage, so I honestly have no idea what it is you're trying to argue. You're coming across as being deliberately obtuse.
um, yeah, but marriage also isn't a requirement for having kids. the two just happen to totally randomly be statistically correlated and one just happens to totally randomly predict the other
it's called incentivization
Sure, I don't disagree. I just find it interesting that the incentives for kids come through incentivizing marriage instead of directly incentivizing children.
Esteban_Villa
Veteran XV
No it's not.
Based on Keynesian economics anyways.
Imagine a world where most couples divorce and then they own/rent two homes. You just doubled the market. Since real wealth generation doesnt actually matter and simply expanding the market counts. Twice the amount of people with mortgages. Twice the amount of people more likely living paycheck to paycheck which means spending money (paycheck to pay checkers are proven biggest spenders per dollar earned) instead of saving money like greedy hoarders who dont want to stimulate the economy.
If you illegalized divorce let's say and forced couples to live under the same roof you literally just destroyed the housing market as such a significant amount of child rearers have seperate homes/apts that the percentage of market lost just tanked the market.
Obviously I'm hyperbolizing but our current government economic incentives offered to individuals by and large encourage consumption and expenditure over rainy day savings and conservative (fiscally) decision making.
Last edited: