[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Cut to the chase. Describe the tax interests.
etc
etc
etc
etc

I ALREADY DID THAT - REPEATEDLY...!!!

Knock knock knock - sombody's at home...?

Look, if there is a couple and becomes old dies, then the community looses two heads, so they must have had 2 children to compensate for their death in order for the population to stay constant. Actually, because some kids by desease or accident or crime die before having two kids of their own, there must be a little overcompensation per couple/women, that's why you can read that statistically for most societies you need 2.1 or 2.3 bybies per woman, I do not remember exactly right now, to compensate for the death of the parents if you want to have a population at a constant level. Simple? Simple, very.

If you have a couple that naturally produces babies by itself, this helps to compensate for deaths in the population, but if couples in mean have less than 2.1 babies, the population shrinks, and if couples have more than 2.1 babies, the population grows (assuming no change in living conditions and medical availability etc etc). That means: too few births, fewer tax payers in the future.Simple? Simple, very.

Our societies are overaging, we lack young people,. Two conclusions: too few babies get born in our societies. Simple? Yes, very simple. And: in the future, few and fewer taxpayers must pay for more and more old people. Simple? Very simple.

We talk no global numbers in total world population here, becasue our tax system and national survival depends on national popultion and taxpayers, not global population. America does not get taxes from people from India, Germany does not get taxes from Bangladesh. Still simple, isn'T it!?

Homosexual couples do not produce babies. Simple, yes? Now the hundred thousand dollar question - do they produce future tax payers? Do they help to produce future workers and academical specialists and future payers of national fincial burdens - like your social wellfare or pension when you have become old? No, they don't - isn't this a surprise!?

Who does more contributions for the community future, then? Hetero couples, or homo couples? Surprise, it is the hetero couple! Simple, isn't it?
What contributiuons does the society get from the homo couples, regadring ensuring the communities future survival? Wowh, it is a fantastic nothing! No babies produced, no future tax payer, no future worker, no futre academical expert. no nothing. So here we have reached the point where it seems to become not as simple anymore for some, or is it?!

What form of living together thus is of more vital interest and value for the community, then? The homo or the hetero relationship? You guessed it by now - it is the hetero relationship. It can make a diffrence for the community's futurte, while the homo rerlationshiop never does.

Is this about morals? NBo - it is aboiut stinking money? Is it about science? No, it is about demographic statistics, and simple mathematics! Traraaaa!

When we have an exploding world population, but suffering a shortage in births in the developed world, does the first mean the latter is irrelavent? No, it just means that the wrong countries that cannot afford it get too many babies, and the developed countries get too little. Is this racist to say? No, it is elemental mathematics and conclusive logic.

When you look at our own society now, America or Germany. What does it tell you when the social upper class shrinks, is overaging, and has a birth rate of let'S say around 1.6 babies, and the social lower class, constantly being pushed up in numbers by migratzion of educationally unqualified - and in case of Muslim people for the most integration-unwilling - migrants, and you read for your nation'S census the different ethnic subgroups of this segment of the population have birth rates between somehwere of 2.8 and 5.6 babies - what do these two things - which by trend I quote correctly - tell you? It means the group of people having good job chances and chances to make it into any kind of social elites or specialised jobs, is shrinking, which translates the group of future tax payers is shrinking, while the group of people having no or small chances for education and jobs - translates into netto receivers and not paqying compensating taxes - is growing. We now have the 1 million dollar question: how does this end...?

I take it for granted that you know the established correlation between social environment factors lice family situation and income, living place etc, and success in education and job/career chances. The smaller your social status and income, the smaller is the statistical chance for your children to surpass your status and income/social group when they have grown up.

It's really nerve-killing that one must so explcitly time and again explain thse very elemental very basic things. Even more so when it was done in several threads already, at least was summarised. For example here I refrred to the work of Gunnar Heihnsiohn, an explicite and well-reputated academic experts for reasearch done on demographical statistical analysis

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...nnar+Heihnsohn

I have just run a Google search, and found that while in Germany we have both a national law code ruling on family issues, and an article in the constitution constitution claiming the priviliged status of mothers, children and families, you inAmerica have apparently no such constitutional ruling, and no nation-wide one law on family issues, but you have family issues ruled on basis of individual versions of family laws in the different states (if my short survey at google gave me a correct impression). But at least these laws of yours - also seem to indicate a specially protected status of mothers, and families in most states.

Where reality does not match the laws in your or my country, this does not mean that the laws have been rendered overaged or pointless, and their content invalid. It means that the distortion being caused, is massive.

I do not need morals to argue against the equal status of gay marriage, I do not need it at all. And I haven't even tried it in this thread. I do not even need any science, I just need elemental statistc, and some reasonable guessing.

Gays and lesbians do not procreate, and thus their meaning as a partnership from a communal standpoint, is zero. Non-existent. Meaningless. Unimportant. Conclusion: no tax equality for gay/lesbian living together, and families/hetero couples. Note that finacial benefits being given to the latter, do vary and very well differ between couples raising children, and couples who does no (still not, or no more).

I could however argue in moral or better: historical terms on the issue of gay marriages. I admit then I still would be against it, because the institution of marriage in my understanding of history still is caused and based upon the understanding of family in a hetereosexual constellation, actually or potentially.

You are free to love somebody and live together with that person or have two different appartements. You may agree on consensual sex and techniques, and you may live like you want. All this is of no importance for society, lioke it also does not effect society whether oyu have good relaitons with your working collegaues or not. It does not matter for society. But havingf enough fa,milies producing sufficient ammount of babies and raising them, babies from the matching social background - that is of vital interest for society, it is decisive.

And that is what decides this useless debate. And again, I must not even use or argue in moral terms to conclude on that. It is about numbers, and numbers alone. You may like that, or not, you may find it shabby to say so, or cold-hearted, contradicting your demand for total freedom and total "equality" - it does not matter, not for reality and not for society . What matters are the numbers, numbers are it, nothing else. And it seems to me that in general, people in all the world know this since many millenia. Somebody earlier in this thread said that when it is siuch an old tradition, it is time to chnage it.

But maybe the tradition became so old, because it is so vital, so healthy, so well-proven?!