Re: Go Elton John!
[quote author=“dougsmith”][quote author=“Jaik”]http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Music/11/13/britain.eltonjohn.ap/index.html
Yes, I saw this, Jaik. Thanks for pointing it out, I was thinking of posting the same. Good for him at least to get the subject out in the air a bit more. I wonder if he is in contact with Dawkins at all ...
[quote author=“Jaik”]Some people came up with socioeconomic reasons (they didn’t agree with them, just provided the perspective), citing that a number of public figures have said gays would be taking advantage of the government by reaping the finacial benefits of marriage that are provided for couples who can have kids. (The answer to this involves a heterosexual couple that is sterile, but I wasn’t trying to argue against it, I just wanted to hear the secular reason)
I know you don’t agree with this supposed argument, but anyway you don’t need to resort to infertile couples in order to make it. Many married couples decide not to have children for other reasons: philosophical, economic, whatever. But they are allowed to remain married.
So, are they going to tell couples that decide not to have kids that they can’t be married either?
And even then the argument wouldn’t work, since gay couples can have children. Lesbians and gay men sometimes find willing partners for in vitro fertilization. And of course they can (or should be allowed to) adopt.
So none of these supposedly secular arguments against gay marriage works.
I think you guys are missing my point. First off, I share your views on the subject Doug. I was saying that couples who are married but without kids are simply one answer (among many) to the fact that married couples dont need kids to be justified.
My point is, the economic reasoning has nothing to do with religion. It may have been created by people who have religious reasons for wanting to limit gay freedom, but the actual reasoning is seperate from religion.