(July 3, 2015 at 2:40 am)robvalue Wrote: I'm just going to throw this one out there.
Even if some huge catastrophe happens and we have an urgent need to repopulate as quickly as possible, why is it important that any surviving gay couples are not married? How does that help with repopulating?
It doesn't. All these arguments are not about marriage, they are about trying to demonstrate homosexuals are somehow inferior and less important. By allowing them to marry we are letting them rise to our level. What is really being suggested here is generally oppressing and ostracising them, with stopping them getting married being just one of the objects you can throw at them. How even that helps with potential under population scenarios is unclear. Let's face it, it has nothing to do with it. Gay men and women can have babies just as well as anyone else. And since "gay" is not hereditary, there is no risk of the population becoming "over gay".
It is ridiculous anyway, as the idea that we need more people to reproduce is very far removed from the world as we know it. I say, gay couples are better for us than heterosexual couples, because they are less likely to accidentally reproduce, and we already have way too many people. If anything, we should encourage homosexual behavior. It won't get people like me to change, but the idea that homosexuality is a problem because it does not produce children is just idiotic. That is a virtue in our world, not a vice.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
