Homosexuals are not as dumb as you are assuming they are. They KNOW that their union will not produce any children. Marriage is only a symbol that provides a few tax breaks, so why not let the homosexuals marry?

@skrum

"Since homosexual unions have a birthrate of zero, it is hard to argue that there is a genetic disposition to homosexuality unless it operates at the population level. "

no

one of the main hypotisis is that, the "male gay gene" increases the fertility of females with this gene. so it is in effect a gene that if a woman gets it, she gets more children, if a man gets it he gets fewer.

also the average number of children for homosexual men is not 0.

thirdly;
from one hypotisis (I think this one is the leading one) having the gay gene does not mean you become gay, it has to be paired with the right enviroment in the mothers womb. as the statistics show the number of older brother a male child has increases his chanse of becoming gay.

from this it is very easy to argue that the gay man will devote his life to help his brothers and nieces and nephues, and maybe then increasing his own genes fitness more than he would by having children himself.

"So many things are wrong with that Thraxle that it's hilarious. But Republicans are generally close-minded so I wouldn't expect any differently."

Typical response, but I don't expect much more than that from most people either.

So now this thread is pro-homosexuality AND pro-religion. Nice symmetry there.

Cultural Relativism - the principle that an individual human's beliefs and activities should be understood by others in terms of that individual's own culture.

OK, read a scholarly article or two.....still haven't changed my mind.

Dete, imagine what the world could accomplish if the money and time spent on religion were used more wisely. For those that are socialism supporters (Democrats and Europeans), just sit back and think about all that money and time that could be spent helping the poor. There's nothing more hilarious to me than to drive through a poor neighborhood and see a multi-million dollar church getting built. Pretty sad that people are as brainwashed as they are that their church is more important than their own lives, or the lives of their kids.

So now that I've pissed off pretty much everyone in this thread, feel free to lash out at me. Just refrain from the name calling....I do.

well, simba, you still have to piss me off. :D

I like how this thread have all been fairly hypothetical. (at least the parts I bothered to read).

I would like to paraphrase Rand
'whenever there is a conflict of oppinion, the conflict usually arise from the premises'
or something to that extent.

the fundamental difference between liberetarian/republican and social democracy/socialism/comunism is the main premises.

(this is one place where the premises of left and right differs)

the right focuses on a persons right to own what he has produced or gained fairly.

the left focuses on that every person are born equal, therefore one cannot justify some children being born well of at the cost of many being born in poverty, and some having good oppertunities at the cost of many others oppertunities.

neither capitalism or communism manages to live up to their ideal, and there truth to both statements.

this is why I feel that the political discussions of most people does actually very little to prusuade eachother, they are mostly about talkingpoints and single issues. any real discussion about politics is a discussion about the premises.

I also must say that when I see people "schooling" others about economy using only the supply/demand curv on anything. When I see this, I think "this guy does not know economy". because he talks about the supply/ demand curv as the ultimate truth. But it is only the "ultimate truth" if you subscribe to the austrian school of economics. But there are several differing schools of economics, and none of them rise to the level of being the ONLY theory.

In my argument from numbers I used the wrong formula. It is not N factorial / 2 factorial, it is N factorial / (N - 2) factorial.

Kreuz:

I presume when you say that homosexual males can have children you mean those that are conceived outside the fidelity bonds of the homosexual marriage. If that is the case, that would be another argument against homosexual marriage because it would prevent the partner from procreating nephews and nieces, etc. that he could help care for.

Final take on the numbers:

If the number of males and females is the same, the homosexual jealosy factor increases with N, but it is asymptotic to 0.5. So more than half of the jealousy would be heterosexual.

Sorry, this hasn't been my day. Nephews and nieces procreated by a homosexual partner are not real nephews and neices. Fidelity in a homosexual marriage means each partner would forsake having children of his own so that he could devote more resources to his natural nephews, nieces, etc. If he has at least two brothers or eight nephews, that would be a worthwhile tradeoff.

AMENDMENT I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

AMENDMENT IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

AMENDMENT XIV

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.