SURVEY: Gay Marriage--Good for Thailand or not?

[BritManToo]

I wanted an option "Marriage shouldn't be allowed at all"

Unfortunately the nearest to that was "Gay marriage shouldn't be allowed at all"

[BritManToo]

22 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

Marriage is an institution that strengthens society. A married couple can look after themselves independently of the State much more easily than two individuals separately. All conservatives should be in favour of this."

If divorce wasn't allowed, I might agree.

[sherwood]

Gay people should at least have the rights of a Soi Dog. 

[Blumpie]

All homosexuals deserve to be married and be just as miserable as the rest of us.  

[newnative]

13 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Of course if gay marriage would benefit the country as a whole then you would have to support gay marriage.

 

Looking at the UK, Spain or Germany I don't seen any great benefit to the country as a whole that gay marriage has brought.

 

Has there been any disadvantage to having gay marriage? Of course there are many disadvantages to non-gay taxpayers in allowing gay marriage. Gay marriage would entitle gay couples to typical marriage benefits including claiming a tax exemption for a spouse, receiving social security payments from a deceased spouse, and coverage by a spouse’s health insurance policy, largely at taxpayers’ expense. 

 

Indeed in the US the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost to the federal government of extending employment benefits to same-sex domestic partners of certain federal employees (making no mention of additional costs such as Social Security and inheritance taxes) would be $596 million in mandatory spending and $302 million in discretionary spending between 2010 and 2019.

 

So it costs the non-gay taxpayer hundreds of millions. Why should non-gays subsidise gays?

 

 

 

      Wow.  You're seriously asking that question?   Your real question should have been why have gay couples subsidized with their taxes the benefits that non-gay married couples have gotten for all the many years when gay marriage was not legal? 

     If federal employment benefits for the relatively small number of gay married couples cost what you mentioned, how much have taxpayers spent over the years to 'subsidize' the benefits the many more non-gay married couples have received?  Any figures on that from the Budget Office?   With your reasoning, it's fine for gays to support non-gays with their taxes but not vice versa.  ("Why should non-gays subsidise gays?" Maybe try reversing that.)  You highlight the price tag for benefits gay married federal workers receive but keep silent on the much larger price tag for non-gay federal married worker benefits.  Hmm.   

      Money aside, sometimes the benefit to a country is something more than financial.  Sometimes the benefit is in doing the right thing, correcting an injustice.  Was there a big financial benefit for the US when it gave women the right to vote?  Maybe not too much.  The cost of holding elections probably even went up a bit; maybe more people had to be hired to register the voters and count the ballots, and more printing costs, voting booths, etc.  Financially, probably better to just continue to limit the voting to men.  And, better yet, just stick with the original voters allowed back in 1789--white land-owning or tax-paying men.  The benefit with extending voting rights, gay marriage rights, and other rights enjoyed by some citizens and denied to others is a country choosing to act responsibly and fairly by treating its citizens more equally. 

[Logosone]

11 minutes ago, newnative said:

      Wow.  You're seriously asking that question?   Your real question should have been why have gay couples subsidized with their taxes the benefits that non-gay married couples have gotten for all the many years when gay marriage was not legal? 

     If federal employment benefits for the relatively small number of gay married couples cost what you mentioned, how much have taxpayers spent over the years to 'subsidize' the benefits the many more non-gay married couples have received?  Any figures on that from the Budget Office?   With your reasoning, it's fine for gays to support non-gays with their taxes but not vice versa.  ("Why should non-gays subsidise gays?" Maybe try reversing that.)  You highlight the price tag for benefits gay married federal workers receive but keep silent on the much larger price tag for non-gay federal married worker benefits.  Hmm.   

      Money aside, sometimes the benefit to a country is something more than financial.  Sometimes the benefit is in doing the right thing, correcting an injustice.  Was there a big financial benefit for the US when it gave women the right to vote?  Maybe not too much.  The cost of holding elections probably even went up a bit; maybe more people had to be hired to register the voters and count the ballots, and more printing costs, voting booths, etc.  Financially, probably better to just continue to limit the voting to men.  And, better yet, just stick with the original voters allowed back in 1789--white land-owning or tax-paying men.  The benefit with extending voting rights, gay marriage rights, and other rights enjoyed by some citizens and denied to others is a country choosing to act responsibly and fairly by treating its citizens more equally. 

See to give gays the right to benefit from all the financial benefits that married couples enjoy, but to allow them to live lives which can not and do not procreate and thereby do not create future taxpayers, but still enjoy pensions and such, is not treating citizens equally. It is actually favouring gay people over heterosexual people. 

 

Since gays are not able to procreate and thus do not produce future taxpayers whatever amounts they have paid in taxation are dwarfed many times over by the countless lost generations that will never be born because a person decided to live the gay lifestyle. Things like the pension system only work because heterosexual people have children and produce future taxpayers. In fact all of society only works because of this. The fact that gays have paid taxes that favour those who actually have children is perfectly legitimate. 

 

Indeed if one were to calculate the lost tax revenue for every generation of gay people in the last two hundred years, that figure would be far larger than any taxes paid by gay and lesbian people in that period.

 

If every person followed a gay life style things like pension would be impossible, indeed hospitals would be impossible to the extent they depend on taxation, roads, society at large would become impossible if the gay, childless lifestyle were legitimised and held up as a perfectly viable alternative. It's not. It's a minority pursuit of very few people, and we are all very lucky that is the case.

 

 

[orchis]

37 minutes ago, Logosone said:

See to give gays the right to benefit from all the financial benefits that married couples enjoy, but to allow them to live lives which can not and do not procreate and thereby do not create future taxpayers, but still enjoy pensions and such, is not treating citizens equally. It is actually favouring gay people over heterosexual people. 

 

Since gays are not able to procreate and thus do not produce future taxpayers whatever amounts they have paid in taxation are dwarfed many times over by the countless lost generations that will never be born because a person decided to live the gay lifestyle. Things like the pension system only work because heterosexual people have children and produce future taxpayers. In fact all of society only works because of this. The fact that gays have paid taxes that favour those who actually have children is perfectly legitimate. 

 

Indeed if one were to calculate the lost tax revenue for every generation of gay people in the last two hundred years, that figure would be far larger than any taxes paid by gay and lesbian people in that period.

 

If every person followed a gay life style things like pension would be impossible, indeed hospitals would be impossible to the extent they depend on taxation, roads, society at large would become impossible if the gay, childless lifestyle were legitimised and held up as a perfectly viable alternative. It's not. It's a minority pursuit of very few people, and we are all very lucky that is the case.

 

 

You pretend all marriages produce offspring, or so they should for taxation purposes. Following adjustments to heterosexual marriage conditions should then be made:
Breeders who do not breed should be taxed massively or forced to divorce and try to breed with another partner, until they pull it off.
Breeder marriage should be illegal one of the partners is infertile, past breeding date etc.
Heterosexual divorce should become illegal because children need a parent of each gender.

ps Marriage is not needed to procreate; 40 % of children are born out of wedlock in the U.S.
 

Edited July 12, 2020 by orchis

[jvs]

2 hours ago, Logosone said:

being gay is a sexual preference

Would you mind to back this up somehow?Or try to because imo you have lost this argument already.

Why are you saying gay people can not have children?I know gay people who have kids,kids need a loving environment to grow up in,the sex of the parents is totally a non issue.

Gay people do not raise gay children,i guess we are back to the quote now.

 

[Scott]

Off-topic, troll posts and replies removed.  

 

[newnative]

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

See to give gays the right to benefit from all the financial benefits that married couples enjoy, but to allow them to live lives which can not and do not procreate and thereby do not create future taxpayers, but still enjoy pensions and such, is not treating citizens equally. It is actually favouring gay people over heterosexual people. 

 

Since gays are not able to procreate and thus do not produce future taxpayers whatever amounts they have paid in taxation are dwarfed many times over by the countless lost generations that will never be born because a person decided to live the gay lifestyle. Things like the pension system only work because heterosexual people have children and produce future taxpayers. In fact all of society only works because of this. The fact that gays have paid taxes that favour those who actually have children is perfectly legitimate. 

 

Indeed if one were to calculate the lost tax revenue for every generation of gay people in the last two hundred years, that figure would be far larger than any taxes paid by gay and lesbian people in that period.

 

If every person followed a gay life style things like pension would be impossible, indeed hospitals would be impossible to the extent they depend on taxation, roads, society at large would become impossible if the gay, childless lifestyle were legitimised and held up as a perfectly viable alternative. It's not. It's a minority pursuit of very few people, and we are all very lucky that is the case.

 

 

   Wow again.  As another poster has mentioned, not all straight couples have children.  By your warped reasoning, straight married childless couples are also being favored because they aren't contributing future taxpayers and so they should also be denied the same benefits as married couples with children.  Just as a reminder, some married gay men do have children through surrogates and, of course, some lesbian couples also have children so it's not only just heterosexuals having children.  Let's not even bring in all the problems of over-population but some people, gay and straight, choosing to not have children (but still paying taxes to build schools) does reduce over-crowding and over-population.  But, it's all beside the point because basing benefits on whether one has procreated a future taxpayer is just absurd.  Suppose you produce a deadbeat son who never works or earns a dime?  Cancel your straight married couple benefits?  

[Logosone]

1 hour ago, orchis said:

You pretend all marriages produce offspring, or so they should for taxation purposes. Following adjustments to heterosexual marriage conditions should then be made:
Breeders who do not breed should be taxed massively or forced to divorce and try to breed with another partner, until they pull it off.
Breeder marriage should be illegal one of the partners is infertile, past breeding date etc.
Heterosexual divorce should become illegal because children need a parent of each gender.

ps Marriage is not needed to procreate; 40 % of children are born out of wedlock in the U.S.
 

I never said all marriages produce children, but ideally they do. Because as we all know things like pensions, hospitals, theatres, culture, roads, everything that is largely paid by taxation, depend on future taxpayers being born to survive.

 

Without children, societies, cultures, die.

 

In fact married couples, or indeed just couples, who do not procreate are already disdavantaged in terms of taxation, and they do subsidise with their taxes, those couples who do have children. It is absolutely right that this is the case.

 

As to forcing people to divorce because they do not procreate, that is of course not feasible. The intrusion of the state into private lives should be minimal and the choice of partner should not be dictated by a state. Our modern societies are strong enough to survive despite couples who choose not to procreate or can not procreate. But we need to remember that that is because our societies are built on the foundation of healthy couples and families that do choose to procreate and are able to do so. They are the strong backbone of society. They are thus the ideal that should be the legitimate and highest ideal. 

 

It is perfectly possible to see a scenario where society is no longer strong enough to carry the burden of couples who can not or won't procreate. With the introduction of the pill and feminist ideals indeed the birthrates around the world have, as you know, declined. 

 

Purely on the question of whether gay marriage benefits society as a whole, a country as a whole, I would have to say I do not see the benefits for countries as a whole. There are many tax, financial and other unrelated disadvantages. Gay marriage benefits a small number of people at the cost of the majority of heterosexual people.

 

Since the numbers of gay people are so small, that's not to say gay marriage should or should not be allowed. It may not matter at all, society could be strong enough to withstand this added burden and cost. However, whether it benefits the whole country, surely the answer is clearly "No".

 

 

[Logosone]

15 minutes ago, newnative said:

   Wow again.  As another poster has mentioned, not all straight couples have children.  By your warped reasoning, straight married childless couples are also being favored because they aren't contributing future taxpayers and so they should also be denied the same benefits as married couples with children.  Just as a reminder, some married gay men do have children through surrogates and, of course, some lesbian couples also have children so it's not only just heterosexuals having children.  Let's not even bring in all the problems of over-population but some people, gay and straight, choosing to not have children (but still paying taxes to build schools) does reduce over-crowding and over-population.  But, it's all beside the point because basing benefits on whether one has procreated a future taxpayer is just absurd.  Suppose you produce a deadbeat son who never works or earns a dime?  Cancel your straight married couple benefits?  

That's true of course, not all couples can or choose to have children. They are in fact disadvantaged in terms of taxation because they do subsidise married couples with children. Indeed unless a couple is married some tax advantages and other benefits are not available to them.

 

But yes, childless couples of course do deprive society of future taxpayers who can contribute to paying pensions, hospitals, roads, theatres etc, so to that extent society has lost out. And there have been many calls to expressly penalise childless couples in terms of taxation to a greater extent. I would absolutely support that. Simply because society needs children to survive, to pay pensions, hospitals, roads, theatres etc, without couples who procreate all those people who, out of selfish reasons, decide not to have children would merely end society as such. But of course many couples do have children still, so thus far society is still strong enough to deal with childless couples without imposing harsher tax penalties. However, it's not at all inconceivable those kinds of tax penalties will come in the future, there were already calls for this in mainstream debate.

 

Yes, some gay and lesbian couples do have surrogates. Whether that is desirable is a wholly different question but it is certainly more commendable than not contributing to society in terms of raising children at all. Nevertheless that is a very small percentage of gays and lesbians and neglibile in significance really.

 

Indeed we need to be mindful of problems of overpopulation. But we also need to consider that without future taxpayers there will be no pensions, no hospitals, no roads, no theatres, so obviously children are needed for society to survive in the long term.

 

It is of course not absurd at all to base benefits if someone has children, tax or otherwise, this exact policy is already common place all over the world. 

 

If someone produces a deadbeat, or indeed a disabled, child, society is strong enough to deal with this, and obviously there was no intention to do so. To penalise this would be harsh.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 12, 2020 by Logosone

[Why Me]

A "union" between two persons of opposite sex is materially different from one between two of the same. So let's not pretend there's no distinction. Reflecting that in the books by offering traditional couples a marriage and same-sex ones a civil union makes sense therefore.

 

Rights to shared property and inheritance in case of death of a partner and so forth should be equal between marriages and civil unions as these follow from love and commitment.

 

But when it comes to family issues like adoption it should be recognized that a child raised by a mother and a father fare better than one raised by two parents of the same sex (yes, studies show this). Not to mention that traditional couples can procreate, which is a pretty important activity for our species.

 

Edited July 12, 2020 by Why Me

[Why Me]

37 minutes ago, Logosone said:

And there have been many calls to expressly penalise childless couples in terms of taxation to a greater extent.

This already is done in many western countries but the other way around: couples are given benefits, sometime pretty substantial, per child. Which is a far more humane approach than hounding childless couples.

Edited July 12, 2020 by Why Me

[newnative]

16 minutes ago, Logosone said:

That's true of course, not all couples can or choose to have children. They are in fact disadvantaged in terms of taxation because they do subsidise married couples with children. Indeed unless a couple is married some tax advantages and other benefits are not available to them.

 

But yes, childless couples of course do deprive society of future taxpayers who can contribute to paying pensions, hospitals, roads, theatres etc, so to that extent society has lost out. And there have been many calls to expressly penalise childless couples in terms of taxation to a greater extent. I would absolutely support that. Simply because society needs children to survive, to pay pensions, hospitals, roads, theatres etc, without couples who procreate all those people who, out of selfish reasons, decide not to have children would merely end society as such. But of course many couples do have children still, so thus far society is still strong enough to deal with childless couples without imposing harsher tax penalties. However, it's not at all inconceivable those kinds of tax penalties will come in the future, there were already calls for this in mainstream debate.

 

Yes, some gay and lesbian couples do have surrogates. Whether that is desirable is a wholly different question but it is certainly more commendable than not contributing to society in terms of raising children at all. Nevertheless that is a very small percentage of gays and lesbians and neglibile in significance really.

 

Indeed we need to be mindful of problems of overpopulation. But we also need to consider that without future taxpayers there will be no pensions, no hospitals, no roads, no theatres, so obviously children are needed for society to survive in the long term.

 

It is of course not absurd at all to base benefits if someone has children, tax or otherwise, this exact policy is already common place all over the world. 

 

If someone produces a deadbeat, or indeed a disabled, child, society is strong enough to deal with this, and obviously there was no intention to do so. To penalise this would be harsh.

 

 

 

 

   I keep thinking I am reading satire but I guess I am not.  I don't know about other countries but it's certainly not 'common place' in the US (and, thank goodness for that) to base salary benefits, health care benefits, and pension benefits, as well as married tax benefits, on whether or not one has procreated.  There is a child tax credit, and rightly so.  

[RJRS1301]

10 hours ago, Logosone said:

However, gay marriage is another universe of subsidising gays with all kinds of benefits, that cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of Dollars.

Have you heard of Equality?

Non heterosexual people and heterosexual people without children have subsidised the schools, libraries, sporting activities hospitals etc for those people with children for many generations.

Instead of worrying about costs look at benefits for society.

Communities where people are more equal have  better health outcomes and greater stability.

The current racial situations protesting BLM are born from INEQUALITY 

[PremiumLane]

19 hours ago, Rancid said:

I have no issues with gay marriage, to each their own, however other groups use it as a stepping stone. Transgender activism generally comes straight after, which would be fine except for the excessive demands being made to completely rewrite society. Additionally the New York Times and other publications are now saying that pedophilia is a condition and not criminal, despite the damage to the victims.

Citations needed for that lot....

[Skallywag]

7 hours ago, Why Me said:

Not to mention that traditional couples can procreate, which is a pretty important activity for our species.

7.3 Billion people on a planet that can reasonably sustain maybe 3 Billion people has caused starvation, malnutrition, poverty, environmental degradation and other stresses that make procreation unnecessary for the next several generations. IMO of course 

[Logosone]

7 hours ago, newnative said:

   I keep thinking I am reading satire but I guess I am not.  I don't know about other countries but it's certainly not 'common place' in the US (and, thank goodness for that) to base salary benefits, health care benefits, and pension benefits, as well as married tax benefits, on whether or not one has procreated.  There is a child tax credit, and rightly so.  

Funny, that's how I feel when I hear people talk of a man marrying another man, but I guess that's not satire either.

 

Anyway, I was referring to child tax credit, and other tax and social benefit payouts in other countries that are only available to people with children. Clearly not all salary, health care, or pension benefits are related to having children, but some tax and social benefits exist only for people with children. This is common practice around the world. Presumably those would have to be abolished for full equal treatment, so that gays and lesbians are not disadvantaged because they can never procreate?

 

It is of course the case that many employment, health care and pension benefits are only available to married partners. Hence the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost to the federal government of extending employment benefits to same-sex domestic partners of certain federal employees (making no mention of additional costs such as Social Security and inheritance taxes) would be $596 million in mandatory spending and $302 million in discretionary spending between 2010 and 2019. That's just federal government employees.

 

https://images.procon.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/cbo-same-sex-benefits.pdf

 

So the cost of extending marriage rights to gays around the world easily runs into billions of Dollars. 

 

Money that has to be paid by heterosexual taxpayers in all those countries that allow marriage for homosexuals. 

 

 

Edited July 13, 2020 by Logosone

[scorecard]

18 hours ago, mfd101 said:

For those who can't cope with anything but the whole marriage bit (ie the first option above), the obvious answer is: Perfection is the enemy of progress.

Further, marriage between a man and a woman, seen by some (e.g. religions) as the ultimate condition is IMHO a total farce.

 

How many men and women world wide are in unhappy, unsuccessful and abusive marriages which end in divorce and/or they don't divorce and they (and their kids) live for decades/until death in some form of unhappy and even frightening hell?

 

 

[Logosone]

8 hours ago, Why Me said:

This already is done in many western countries but the other way around: couples are given benefits, sometime pretty substantial, per child. Which is a far more humane approach than hounding childless couples.

Indeed, this is very true.

 

And of course those benefits given to couples who have children have to be paid also by those couples who do not have children. 

 

If one considers that those who do not procreate, by choice or because they are unable, will be claiming pension but in turn do not contribute future taxpayers that will ever pay for those pension claims, then it is perfectly legitimate that childless couples are taxed for the benefit of those who have children.

 

However, the amount obtained by the taxation applied to child benefits is far smaller than the amount lost to society by couples who do not have children and therefore do not contribute future taxpayers.

[stouricks]

17 hours ago, Yinn said:

Up to them. Not my business. 

 

Love is love.

 

Gay marriage happen already Thailand. A lot.

no problem.

 

 

 

Why do you only show Gay MEN getting married. Do Gay WOMEN no do the same?

[Logosone]

1 hour ago, RJRS1301 said:

Have you heard of Equality?

Non heterosexual people and heterosexual people without children have subsidised the schools, libraries, sporting activities hospitals etc for those people with children for many generations.

Instead of worrying about costs look at benefits for society.

Communities where people are more equal have  better health outcomes and greater stability.

The current racial situations protesting BLM are born from INEQUALITY 

Yes, and indeed childless couples, those who can not or choose not to have children, should subsidise those who have children. 

 

You see it is not equal treatment to allow gays to receive all the tax benefits of marriage, to claim pensions, but then to never have gay couples contribute future taxpayers that will pay for those pension claims. That is actually preferential treatment for gays and other childless couples at the expense of heterosexual couples who have children.

 

That is why it is perfectly legitimate that childless couples are disadvantaged via taxation. These tax disadvantages of course do not compensate in full for the generations of lost children that will never pay tax, never contribute to pensions, roads, hospitals, theatres and anything else for which taxpayers are indispensable.

 

It's funny how you decry inequality however you do not expect equal contributions to tax revenues by those who do not have children.

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Yes, and indeed childless couples, those who can not or choose not to have children, should subsidise those who have children. 

 

You see it is not equal treatment to allow gays to receive all the tax benefits of marriage, to claim pensions, but then to never have gay couples contribute future taxpayers that will pay for those pension claims. That is actually preferential treatment for gays and other childless couples at the expense of heterosexual couples who have children.

 

That is why it is perfectly legitimate that childless couples are disadvantaged via taxation. These tax disadvantages of course do not compensate in full for the generations of lost children that will never pay tax, never contribute to pensions, roads, hospitals, theatres and anything else for which taxpayers are indispensable.

 

It's funny how you decry inequality however you do not expect equal contributions to tax revenues by those who do not have children.

Dude. 

You're obsessed with breeding humans as if they are livestock. 

Whether to have children or not is a personal choice for all humans except if they are sterile. 

Last time I checked the earth had more than enough people. 

As far as some countries needing more young people yes that has happened in some advanced countries but to scapegoat a minority group as you obnoxiously do for that is simply hate speech. 

The main reason is that the population as a whole is aging and choosing often for economic reasons to have no or few kids. 

The people making those choices are overwhelming straight so to scapegoat gays for that is truly disgusting. 

 

There is a solution for this issue. 

 

It's called IMMIGRATION. 

 

Of course we all know that with the rise of hyper nationalist populism that there is deep anti immigration sentiment in many countries now. But regardless that is the obvious and easy solution. 

 

I will add its quite rich to hear your truly bigoted attacks on gay people justified to save live theater. Hilarious actually. Can anyone imagine the arts and theater thriving without gay people? 

 

To summarize, white supremacists are an evil and rising force in the world now. 

 

I would categorize your POV as heterosexual supremacist. 

 

 

 

[mikey88]

We have gay marriage in Australia and it works fine.

Love is Love.

I love my partner deeply and am heartbroken to the point of almost giving up entirely.

I’m stuck overseas and can’t get back to Thailand.

If we were married in Thailand I might be able to come back.
I have no rights as it is.

 

 

[brianp0803]

Maybe I misunderstand about the reason people get married. I thought marriage was a legal declaration of two peoples’ love and their intent to stay together and take care of each other. That also includes taking care of each other after the death of one of the partners.
Most of the arguments against gay marriage have been used before against interracial marriages. It is amazing the bigotry that once existed that tried to outlaw interracial marriages. But maybe the same people that are against gay marriage are also against interracial marriages. It is the same type of person

 

Marriage is not needed to create future taxpayers. I believe that everybody, married or not, with children receive a tax credit on their income tax. The tax credit does not depend on if you’re married or single or gay or straight.

I feel very sorry for a guy’s wife if he views her only function to him is to create future taxpayers. I feel sorry for his children if his view of them is to pay taxes to support him in his old age. There seems to be no love at all in this attitude.

Its a very sad way to live a life. Born, create children, die(love is not important)

[jaf3]

19 hours ago, jvs said:

You need help.

We have clearly seen the utter destruction of Holland, Sweden, Spain, Taiwan etc since they starting allowing Gay Marriage. It clearly ruins economies and destroys societies! Stop it before it ruins the amazing economy of Thailand  and its perfect social order! Now ! (this is satire...) 

[Logosone]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Dude. 

You're obsessed with breeding humans as if they are livestock. 

Whether to have children or not is a personal choice for all humans except if they are sterile. 

Last time I checked the earth had more than enough people. 

As far as some countries needing more young people yes that has happened in some advanced countries but to scapegoat a minority group as you obnoxiously do for that is simply hate speech. 

The main reason is that the population as a whole is aging and choosing often for economic reasons to have no or few kids. 

The people making those choices are overwhelming straight so to scapegoat gays for that is truly disgusting. 

 

There is a solution for this issue. 

 

It's called IMMIGRATION. 

 

Of course we all know that with the rise of hyper nationalist populism that there is deep anti immigration sentiment in many countries now. But regardless that is the obvious and easy solution. 

 

I will add its quite rich to hear your truly bigoted attacks on gay people justified to save live theater. Hilarious actually. Can anyone imagine the arts and theater thriving without gay people? 

 

To summarize, white supremacists are an evil and rising force in the world now. 

 

I would categorize your POV as heterosexual supremacist. 

 

 

 

Yes, it's hard work to take time off from my "heterosexual supremacist", human breeding stud-farm to post here, but for you it's worth it.

 

Obviously it is a personal choice to have children and will always remain so. However, every government in the world recognises that it needs children. From Singapore to Japan to France to the USA all governments attempt to encourage people having children.

 

The reason is simple, things like pensions are a generational contract between the old and the young. The young pay for the pensions of the old, on the understanding that there will be future generations that will in turn pay for their pensions. Without future taxpayers not just pensions, but hospitals, roads, theatres, all those things paid by taxpayers would be impossible.

 

Hence there are tax incentives, benefits and many other ways that governments try to encourage the birth of children.

 

Not because they are "obsessed with breeding humans as if they were lifestock", but because, unlike you, they understand the fundamental economic reality of the societies we live in. You say there are already enough human beings, however, what you don't understand is that in many countries there is a large, ever-growing, contingent of old people who are maintained at taxpayer's expense, and that contingent is growing larger and larger. Whereas the number of children is not growing with the same speed. Pension systems around the world depend on taxpayers who are not being born in sufficient numbers anymore to maintain the growing number of old people.

 

Obviously I am not scapegoating gays for this, because gays are a tiny minority in each country. The point rather is whether gay marriage would be a benefit for a country as a whole. Nobody appears to be able to articulate any such benefit, whereas the cost and disadvantages of gay marriage for heterosexual people are very clear. Now that does not mean, clearly, that heterosexual couples who choose not to have children are not a much bigger problem, of course they are.

 

Indeed, to a small degree immigration can and does help in adding taxpayers that are lost by people who won't or can not have children. Why else would Germany take in 1.3 million immigrants in 2015/16? However, immigration does not provide sufficient numbers of new taxpayers.  That is because the demographic change has been happening for decades, every year about 600,000 children are missing to maintain previous standards, and each time this happens the missing children can not be parents and thus the demographic problems gets worse every year. Even taking in 1.3 million migrants over two years is not sufficient to cure this demographic problem. And it is not feasible to incorporate 1.3 million migrants for most countries on a continuous basis. Migrants can never replace children in full.

 

If pointing out realities makes me a "heterosexual supremacist" I guess then so be it.

 

Edited July 13, 2020 by Logosone

[Logosone]

12 minutes ago, jaf3 said:

We have clearly seen the utter destruction of Holland, Sweden, Spain, Taiwan etc since they starting allowing Gay Marriage. It clearly ruins economies and destroys societies! Stop it before it ruins the amazing economy of Thailand  and its perfect social order! Now ! (this is satire...) 

 

Your camp just keeps making these silly red-herring arguments. Nobody said that gay marriage would destroy any country.

 

The question rather was if gay marriage is an overall benefit or a disadvantage for a country as a whole.

 

It is clear that allowing gay marriage results in gays obtaining hundreds of millions  of Dollars of employment, social, tax and other benefits. Benefits which have to paid for by heterosexual taxpayers, many hundred millions, across the world indeed billions of Dollars.

 

So, whilst gay marriage, due to tiny numbers, would obviously not destroy any country it would still be something that costs many millions to taxpayers and is not a benefit to a country as a whole. Only for a small minority.

Edited July 13, 2020 by Logosone

[brianp0803]

Wow

I thought my current taxes were used to pay for roads and schools and to support the government. Thanks for informing me that it is my future children’s future taxes that are going to support these functions. 
 

in America, people pay money into the Social Security system, and when they’re older, they get money from the Social Security system. It should not need future taxpayers to pay for my retirement.  Unfortunately, the government saw all this money future retirees had put into the fund and decided to spend it. It was intended to be - give money to the government now and collect later. But since the government spent the money on various social programs, it depends on future taxpayers to replenish the money.

 

(The social programs may have been good, but it should not have used money from Social Security to pay for them)