analog

It would likely be easier to accept your opinions as being motivated by "the good of the country", as you claim, if you didn't speak with such contempt for them.

With only 1.5-2% of females exclusively homosexual, and 3-4% of males, what precisely is your concern? Your concern is that some of the 2% of women in the entire US population or 4% of the men might want to have their union recognized in a civil process?

So you're saying that your tax dollars are ok to pay for the chance that the other 98% of straight women and 96% of straight men want to marry, but that last 2% and 4% are out of the realm of reasonable? Right now, there are 147.8 million women in the US, and only 62.9 million of them married- that's 42.5% of all women in the US. Using the approximation of 2% of all women to be homosexual, that's a mere 2,956,000 women of the 147.8 million total. Let's assume, since there are no numbers to support it, that your nightmare has reached its peak, and a full 50% of all homosexual women want to get married. This is, of course, way more than the only 42.5% of straight women who are currently married, by percentage. That's 1,478,000 married lesbians, or 739,000 couples.

A same-sex union would, at most, only ever result in the same "tax burden" as a hetero couple with no kids, and not more. To put this into perspective, you're adamently denying equal rights and "your tax dollars" to 739,000 female couples, when 44% of ALL women of childbearing age are childless. This makes your tax argument complete and utter bunk.

Unless, of course, you're looking to deny tax dollars to hetero couples who don't procreate? Or maybe you'd like to take tax aid away from even the single women who aren't making babies?

"Your tax dollars" are going towards schools for all the heteros' spawn, it's going towards healthcare aid for those who (intentionally or not) have children and can't afford them, it goes to subsidize public housing for a lot of them, it goes to subsidizing college educations for children, it goes to publicly available and free family planning centers teaching soon-to-be parents how to cope with the new addition and how to best prepare, among a littany of other things that your tax dollars go to pay for all the hetero spawn.

Oh, and by the way- gay women don't hand in their eggs when they go gay. Plenty of lesbian women are planning on, or have had, children. I'm sure there are many gay male couples who would like to adopt- but the issue of that is another thread by itself, i'm just talking about your very important "taxes only for the procreating" dollars.

So can I get government aid right now, even though i'm not married, because it's possible for me to get married? Specious. Specious and grasping at straws.

See above. Lesbians can easily reproduce- in fact, they can reproduce twice as fast as your precious, "normal", hetero couples can, because they have two women. Gay men can also raise children, and there are more than enough unwanted children to go around to anyone with the income stability to take them. Again, we're arguing over your taxes, leave the "gay couples raising kids" stuff out of this thread.

All heteros have to do is "shack up", and they already get their union recognized by the government- there's no difference. And forget your argument about "it's possible they could reproduce", because it's bunk and malarky, and you know it.

If I get married tomorrow and sign a piece of paper saying I will NEVER have children, I still get all my tax breaks and whatnot, and STILL pay ALL the taxes everyone else who IS having kids pay- so I'm not adding to the tax burden by having kids, but i'm still adding to the pool of taxes everyone else pays anyway.

So basically, even if you're right about same-sex couples not being able to have kids (which you're wrong about), you've caught yourself in a huge fallacy of logic- they pay all the same taxes you do, but aren't using nearly at all the same resources as you. They're helping you out by paying taxes on services they'll NEVER use. So what are you trying to convince us of, exactly? because your reasons don't stand up to even passive scrutiny.

So again, you propose removing all tax aid to those hetero couples who don't have kids? Because there are a lot of them. And again, the "hetero couples having children is a possibility" argument is nonsense.