I've come to a conclusion that I'm against gay marriage.

[Wiglaf]

I just don't understand how homosexuality can be an evolved and totally natural trait, but homophobia can't be.

We aren't meant to be enamored with people who jam their penises in the wrong hole. It's just a fact of life.

[Proteus_MST]

It's not simply because they're deviants. Many of the privileges of marriage are designed around the husband/wife arrangement. Married couples benefit from billions in income tax reductions when one spouse (the husband, almost always) makes a lot of money and another (the wife) makes nothing and raises the kids. The incentives are designed around the traditional family unit.

...

http://www.divorcemag.com/articles/Divorce_News/divorce-statistics-us-census-children.shtml

http://adage.com/article/adagestat/amazing-decline-american-household/227856/

According to these statistics there are more married couples without children, than there are with children.
So, as you rest all of your assumptions on the potential to procreate ... what shall we do with the (obviously not so low) married couples who (till their 50s) never create any offspring (or raise some of them) and therefore betrayed the american state by getting benefits for something that they never delivered. And what shall we do with (not yet married) couples who want to marry, but are over 55 years old and therefore with almost certainty will never ever fulfill their duty of procreating and/or raising offspring. It seems to be obvious that it doesn´t make sense to give them any tax deductions or any of the other benefits that are incuded with marriage

[giblets]

I just don't understand how homosexuality can be an evolved and totally natural trait, but homophobia can't be.

We aren't meant to be enamored with people who jam their penises in the wrong hole. It's just a fact of life.

Homophobia could be natural, along tendencies to steal or engage in violence. It's still bad.

Is it okay to be enamored with people who use their vaginas the wrong way?

[Wiglaf]

According to these statistics there are more married couples without children, than there are with children.

The statistics do not say that, and even if they did, it would mean nothing unless you could show me lifetime statistics (ie, % of married couples who after x years of marriage still have no kids).

Some marriages don't produce kids but I see no reason to ruin the tax incentive structure further because of this.

[Wiglaf]

Homophobia could be natural, along tendencies to steal or engage in violence. It's still bad.

Is it okay to be enamored with people who use their vaginas the wrong way?

People with natural violent tendencies are known as sociopaths, and those with tendencies to steal are known as kleptomaniacs, and no, they do not get tax incentives either. They are deviations from evolved norms. Homophobia is far more common.

[Ben Kenobi]

According to these statistics there are more married couples without children, than there are with children.

Proteus, you are aware that they are only counting households that have children in them at present?

[Dr Strangelove]

It's not simply because they're deviants. Many of the privileges of marriage are designed around the husband/wife arrangement. Married couples benefit from billions in income tax reductions when one spouse (the husband, almost always) makes a lot of money and another (the wife) makes nothing and raises the kids. The incentives are designed around the traditional family unit.

You're really out in the ozone RIp van Wiglaf. Before the recession the majority of mothers (not wives, mothers) in the US were full time employed. As of 2009 49% were full time employed, 17% part time employed and 6% listed as unemployed. http://www.jec.senate.gov/public/?a=...-f7f7999911ab-

Gays don't comprise a traditional family unit, they'll never have kids and even the bottoms tend to work at spas or whatever making as much as their boyfriends. So they are denied the tax incentives. Cry all you want about it, but get in line with everyone else, like people who don't own homes, people who don't have solar panels on their homes, people who don't have cash for charity, etc.

In the 2000 US census 33% of female same sex couple housholds and 22% of male sme sex couple households reported at least one child under 18 living in the home. http://www.apa.org/about/policy/parenting.aspx

[Wiglaf]

The women are employed, but they aren't making nearly as much as their husbands because they tend to be dumber and much worse at mathematics. The tax incentives apply as long as there is a significant income disparity.

[Proteus_MST]

Proteus, you are aware that they are only counting households that have children in them at present?

Yes, unfortunately I didn´t find any statistics which only displayed married couples >= 55 w/o children
Only this one

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1312995/posts

In which it is displayed that around 6% of the married females report that they intentjonally remain childless and don´t plan on having any of them.
So, lets assume that 5% of the around 40 Mio couples (taken from the statistic before) remain childless for all of their live, That is ~4 million people who intentionally cheat on american society by getting unjustified tax reductions and other privilegues and in turn not doing their duty for which these privilegues were intended. Tax money that could instead be spent for the good of american society, for example on welfare, by financing further tax reductions for american megacorporations or american wars.
Wouldn´t this be worth implementing a system that only benefits couples with childen?
And wouldn´t it also be a further incentive for those couples who plan on not getng children, to produce them?
(and wouldn´t be homosexual couples who really like to adopt children and raise them far better recipients for tax reductions (and other benefits) than heterosexual couples who remain childless for all of their lifes?)

The women are employed, but they aren't making nearly as much as their husbands because they tend to be dumber and much worse at mathematics. The tax incentives apply as long as there is a significant income disparity.

So, should lesbian couples be allowed to marry (and maybe even get double the tax reduction of heterosexual couples)? After all they earn even less money than heterosexual couples

[Wiglaf]

You fool. We want to encourage child raising, not stupidity.

[MrFun]

People with natural violent tendencies are known as sociopaths, and those with tendencies to steal are known as kleptomaniacs, and no, they do not get tax incentives either. They are deviations from evolved norms. Homophobia is far more common.

Being a murderer or a thief means you carry out actions that deprive others (your victims) their rights.

My being gay, and my having sex with other men, and my getting married to another man someday, does not take away anyone else's rights. If you don't like gay marriage, then don't get one.

[Kidlicious]

Being a murderer or a thief means you carry out actions that deprive others (your victims) their rights.

My being gay, and my having sex with other men, and my getting married to another man someday, does not take away anyone else's rights. If you don't like gay marriage, then don't get one.

He's just afraid to get one because society will make him an outcast.

[Aeson]

There's something wrong with homosexuals, and everyone else who makes it harder for me to get to work.

If everyone was homosexual there would be a lower birth rate, and thus less traffic in the future.

[Wiglaf]

Being a murderer or a thief means you carry out actions that deprive others (your victims) their rights.

My being gay, and my having sex with other men, and my getting married to another man someday, does not take away anyone else's rights.

YOU ARE ASKING FOR TAX INCENTIVES

THESE DO NOT GROW ON TREES

THEY TAKE AWAY GOVERNMENTS MONEY

THANK YOU FOR PLAYING

[Kidlicious]

So getting tax incentives is a human rights abuse?