Should Same Sex Marriages Be Allowed? by Agnostic Vec Veltro

The state should not condone unions that are not conducive to the state's well being and sustainability. Legislating gay marriage is not beneficial to the state. Legalizing gay marriage is essentially a waste of societal resources. Basically it would be governmental charity. No, same sex marriages should not be allowed.

For the state, supporting marriage is a very costly affair. Married couples enjoy tax deductions, increased state pensions, increased welfare payments etc. Getting married can have quite a few considerable benefits.

I would like to know, why you think the government does this? Is it because the government is just generally nice? Is it because it's customary? Why do you think the state bothers to regulate and encourage marriages at all?

The reason the government bothers to regulate marriage is because of procreation. Since the society is made up of human beings, it is very important for the state to facilitate the reproduction of new human beings (new citizens and taxpayers). By encouraging the formation of long-term heterosexual unions (marriage) through many financial benefits - the state guarantees the longevity and health of the society.

So it makes sense for the state to recognize heterosexual unions and to encourage and support them. Supporting marriage is essentially an investment into the future, because there is a good chance that the long term family unit will produce new taxpayers and citizens who will go on to form their own families with their own offspring - more taxpayers and citizens.

Gay unions are incapable of procreating, therefore supporting gay marriage simply does not make sense from the perspective of the state. Investing into and supporting gay marriage is a waste because no relevant payoff is to be expected. This is why I called the legislation of gay marriage governmental charity.

You can, of course, disagree with all of this - but if you do, I want to know why you think the state bothers to regulate marriage in the first place?

Lesbians can procreate... with the opposite sex. Gay men can adopt, sure, but so can friends - should friendships also be given marital status? Adoption has no bearing on the reproductive capability of the gay union. Only heterosexual acts and unions can actually produce offspring - so gay unions aren't really producing new taxpayers and citizens at all - their relations with the opposite sex are producing new taxpayers and citizens. Raising humans and creating humans are two separate things.

[In the case of an Infertile Couple] You and your wife are still allowed to be married, because you are a heterosexual couple and therefore, still a procreative type couple. It's just that your union is defective. As I said, the state supports hetero marriages, because hetero unions have the highest potential of creating new human beings. Of course not all hetero couples can and will reproduce, but that doesn't change the fact that hetero couples and unions are the only ones capable of reproducing and are also the most likely unions to reproduce. Gay unions are the least likely unions to reproduce - and even then, reproduction cannot occur without the opposite sex.

Gays simply have no procreative capability, so gay unions cannot be considered that of procreative variety - essentially this is why they are excluded from the privilege of marriage. This is also why the state is reluctant to condone and encourage gay marriages - since they are the least likely union to consistently produce offspring, supporting them is essentially a waste of societal resources.