Not that I don't admire this kid but homosexuals don't have the same marriage rights because they don't benifit the state as much as a heterosexual family does. The purpose of marriage benefits is the future of having a child who can one day pay taxes and contribute to the state. On the other hand homosexual couples provide no benifit to the furthering of the state.
What about women post-menopause? What about the infertile? There are plenty of people who'll never produce taxpayers, regardless their orientation - why don't we limit their rights?
This kind of reasoning looks good, but you don't have to dig very far before you see that its real purpose is in safeguarding old modes of thought, not in promoting the best interests of humanity. Other perspectives prove much more fruitful in that respect.
Couples, all couples, provide a lot of economic benefits. Those who are married tend to make a higher salary, even when you don't count them together. They also spend more than a single person.
Of course, even if they didn't provide any benefits, that's no reason to deny anyone the right to marry who they love. People don't get married to benefit the state. They get married for themselves.
Homosexuals can get married civilly. Also the state would have to force churches to preform gay marriages which is violating the church's rights. All gays have rights they have the right to carry arms, freedom of speech, ect.
And for the record I do not hate or dislike gay people
Yeah, because ALL heterosexual couples have kids and raise them perfectly and gay people can't adopt (some of the MANY foster system) kids or use IVF to conceive so... No. No possible way they could "contribute" to society.
They also can't volunteer at homeless shelters or teach in elementary schools or serve as police officers or firemen. No city councillors here!
Gosh, you're RIGHT. NO POSSIBLE WAY FOR THEM TO BE A BENEFIT TO THEIR COMMUNITIES. What a perfectly REASONABLE excuse to deny them the same rights as all those super useful heterosexual couples who never *ever* commit crimes or act like jerks to their neighbors or evade fucking taxes.
I'm not saying that all gay couples are perfect citizens, but if hetero shit smelled like roses we wouldn't bury it in the ground and wait for it to rot, you feel me?
This kind of reasoning looks good, but you don't have to dig very far before you see that its real purpose is in safeguarding old modes of thought, not in promoting the best interests of humanity. Other perspectives prove much more fruitful in that respect.
And for the record I do not hate or dislike gay people
They also can't volunteer at homeless shelters or teach in elementary schools or serve as police officers or firemen. No city councillors here!
Gosh, you're RIGHT. NO POSSIBLE WAY FOR THEM TO BE A BENEFIT TO THEIR COMMUNITIES. What a perfectly REASONABLE excuse to deny them the same rights as all those super useful heterosexual couples who never *ever* commit crimes or act like jerks to their neighbors or evade fucking taxes.
I'm not saying that all gay couples are perfect citizens, but if hetero shit smelled like roses we wouldn't bury it in the ground and wait for it to rot, you feel me?