If marriage provides no incentives why do homosexuals desire it?
But that isnāt true. Even popes had children out of wedlock. Marriage was a business arrangement.
Define incentives.
You stated heterosexual sex equals converting to heterosexuality.
So the minority population of gays would have, and would, would have so much hetero sex that theyād somehow have been able to keep up. Thatās just absurd.
I would argue itās less absurd than your hypothetical.
If all they have time for is hetero sex ( when will the poor folks sleep) in order to failingly try to prevent population collapseā¦yeah.
No. Itās far more absurd. My hypothetical is grounded in biological reality. Yours is a full time hetero-breeding population of gays who think that somehow they could remotely approach replacement level. Like they want to 24-7 have hetero sexā¦as gays.
Your hypothetical, that suddenly heterosexuals disappear, is grounded in biological reality?
Gays are having children.
Who exactly is grounded in reality?
The population managed to increase when it was only Adam and Eve.
Ivfā¦ oh yes, gays will rush out for IVF at 100 percent and just have them churning multiples of children to still fall catastrophically short of replacement.
ā¦No, what the results would be. Catastrophic. That is grounded in reality. To illustrate that heterosexuality inherently provides a critical function to society (species, even) wide. Therefore, a government that might otherwise be blind to human affairs has a logical basis for elevating and privileging it. So, as to provide an orderly institution for the procreative act, and incentive to join it
Again, human population today, is much greater than when it was just Adam and Eve. Why does everyone need to be replaced so quickly? Why canāt the population just grow steadily? Oh, I know why. Itās because your weak hypothetical needs something to help it cling to life.
Why would government need to promote reproduction via marriage? Just let people do what they have done for thousands of years.
And the government being involved in marriage is a relatively new development.
We donāt have a large enough tax base for the resulting fatherles child related welfare. Nor, to build enough prisons. Thought you spent time in the ghetto? I did in trailer parks. Thatās why we incentivize men and women to do as much of the sexual act in marriage as we can
Now you assume that men wonāt be fathers if they arenāt married to the mothers of their children. Cavemen were all deadbeat dads.
You watched too much Flintstones.
More realistic than your hypothetical.
Sure it is. If weāre being so farfetched as to be reverting gay marriage in a time where the population grows at tens of millions+ a year, with people dying over lack of resources all over the world, weāre certainly able to acknowledge mankind would openly accept homosexuals having kids through scientific means.
You act like mankind is going to stop breeding itself to extinction. Ignoring basic logic.
Weird. Itās almost like itās nothing about reproducing. And completely about reproducing between 2 straight people. Itās almost like the only deciding factor is being gay, and every other instance is given an exception.
Guess gays donāt really need state recognized marriage either then? Heck, there isnāt even an inherent reproductive quality to their coupling. Youāre weakening the case for gay marriage by trying to take aim at hetero marriage.