jvalentine98 wrote:Gay folks don't make babies, it's totally an unnatural way to live in that regard. I don't believe in homosexuality, (...) I don't think homosexuals should have special rights (they are born with the same rights as everyone all ready)
I'm assuming in my response that you are religious. Honestly mean no offense to religious people nor to gays in my response.
You should think about your position a bit more clearly because according to the logic that only people that make babies are "natural", then priests (at least the catholic ones) are unnatural.
Also, Christians are supposed to emulate the life of Christ and according to the versions of the Bible I remember, he didn't procreate. I'm not even going to say Christ was unnatural for not having kids because I would say coming back from the dead and being the son of God is enough to qualify under reasonable definitions of unnatural.
We can go into the question of sterility (recall the mother of John Baptist was barren according to the Bible) - unnatural? Should everyone be tested for fertility before being allowed to marry?
We can ponder also if DINK couples are unnatural (but I can almost guess what your opinion on contraceptives is - unless you are an hypocrite, which I find is not uncommon for religious folks).
I do agree with you on the same rights. Sometimes I wonder what gay rights movement is on about if they are asking for the the same rights. In places where so-called gay marriage is not legal, they can already marry the opposite gender the same as anyone else. It is not like a straight person can marry the same gender in those places, so same rights (I'm being serious here, in that respect). For example, two straight housemates (wanting a tax break perhaps) wouldn't be able to marry regardless of their gender orientation.
I also often wonder if feminists demanding equal rights actually would want stand-up urinals installed in lady's toilets - or to remove all from men's toilets - so I'm a philosopher on this type of subject.
What makes sense in legal terms to me is to decouple any legal (state) benefits from the so-called institution of marriage. The kind of legal protection automatically afforded to spouses (which is useful in case of death, divorce and other such events) should be available to anyone that wants to "enroll" for that. I even think this kind of social contract should be generalized. But it really is just a wrapper that confirms that these people (could even be more than 2) have decided to plan their lives together sharing income etc.
As far as tax benefits are concerned, IMO Governments don't really get anything from people being married, but they arguably do get from people having kids (future taxpayers and such). Many so-called developed countries actively would like people to have more kids. Instead of subsidizing marriage by itself (remember, there are sterile people and DINKs), the solution is not to test people for fertility or ask them what their intentions regarding having children are (they could lie right)...
Simply extend tax / other benefits for having kids, not from being married (and probably with diminishing returns, depending on whether you think the large families or 2 to 4 kids tops are most ideal from the Government point of view).
