Those unions are handled in a pseudo-marital way, via common law marriage. It's not necessarily an incentive. The obligations and rights attendant upon the product of procreation is the entire reason marriage is a thing. When you get a tax break for having a kid, it's so you are better able to fulfill your obligation to raise the child.

This is a major argument against gay marriage being a thing at all, there are no rights and obligations involved in a union where procreation is, in principle, impossible.

Before someone says 'what about old couples or infertile couples' you need to understand what 'in principle' means. 'In principle' means 'relating to the definition of.' Heterosexual unions are in principle procreative unions regardless of incidental situations where procreation is impossible or difficult. Same-sex unions are not non-procreative incidentally, they are non-procreative in principle---by definition.

Well, I don't think the government should be encouraging people to have children anyway. There are already too many people in the world, IMO.

You accused me of saying something I never said. I never said anything that could possibly be construed as what you claimed. You can either cite, apologise, or I can continue to point out how utterly dishonest you.

I just clarified my views on discrimination, as Uke has done similarly, and you're still screaming that because I haven't done it on your terms that I haven't done it at all.

I don't plan on going into further detail so long as you're so detached from actual conversation.

As long as you continue to insist that there is some mysterious reason for why I must treat homosexuality and paedophilia equally, I'm not interested.

It's really very simple Bladesman.

If you think apples are healthy when ingested and a spoonful of arsenic is poisonous when ingested, then you must concede that by your own logic a spoonful of arsenic is good for you.

Huh? Who's being obtuse now?

Apples and arsenic are both made of atoms.

Opinions are by definition neither correct nor incorrect; that's why they're called opinions and not facts. So I suppose they are all equally correct. But that certainly does not imply that I shouldn't want to give my opinion.

My opinions differ from yours as to what I think our laws should include, and I have every right to express them just as much as you do yours.

It's not mysterious. You're arguing that people shouldn't be discriminated against for their immutable sexual orientation. Pedophilia and homosexuality are both immutable sexual orientations, or one is and one isn't. You have not provided evidence or argument that homosexuality is different from pedophilia in this regard (that one is immutable and one is not) and/or you have not justified your position as to how a sexual orientation can even be immutable, or that anti-discrimination laws actually protect people without harming others.

"No you don't, you disgusting homophobe."

I'm not even a pedophobe.

thats not the argument. Total strawman

Cite.

You're claiming people who think a law that should protect gay people from negative discrimination are not following their own logic when they refuse to think the same should apply to people who are sexually attracted to children. So, you're not really offering your opinion, you're claiming the opinion of others is wrong.

I for example, don't think the same laws should apply to someone wants to murder and someone who wants to eat a slice of apple pie. Why do you think that is? Might there be some difference between people who like apple pies and people who fantasize about murder? Some minute details of importance that might suggest we should not treat them equally? Might we at some point have legal grounds to institutionalize one and not the other?

In the terms of this discussion, it started with some of you equating nazis to homosexuals in terms of special protection. Of course, in "western law" it is very rare that political affiliation is offered special protection. For good reason, as it would mean the state would have to define what is acceptable political beliefs. I guess such small tidbits of reasoning isn't very compelling when you get to shout "zomg, now you have to bake cakes with swastikas for nazis!".

Probably recognizing this small chip in the argument, that ship was bailed and a comparison to pedophiles was made instead. Which, as the example with murderers and apple-pie aficionados shows, is just as silly.

Someone fantasizing about murder does not make him a murderer.

"People fantasizing about pedophilia but not actually doing it, and then being discriminated against for their beliefs" is such a ridiculous edge case that it doesn't really need to be addressed. Maybe if there are decades of discrimination towards these people we can discuss that hypothetical. As it currently stands though, it is just a way for the logic boys (bigots) to justify not protecting gays.

In other words, "Let's not let logic interfere with this conversation."

Gotta give you kudos for originality though; I've never seen using logic equated with being a bigot before.

I'm reminded of Buridan's Ass.

I'm not bigoted or homophobic, and I'm trying to protect more people than you, not fewer. If you think the people you describe don't exist, why would you want to specifically exclude them, when including them would be simpler?

What is "immutable" ?

That pretty obviously meant the people who pretend to be deep thinkers and contort themselves into finding ways to deny rights to gays without just saying they are icky. Logic boys was sarcastic. Ill put quotes around it to help you next time.

You cant even identify the argument correctly. I dont think you are qualified to call it silly

I'm not trying to deny rights to anyone, or calling anyone icky. You are doing both.

Ok,got it! I'm very slow, so please use quotes next time. Thanks!

lagtight, since you are somewhat new to the thread, where do you stand: do you think that I should be allowed to legally fire you or block you from my hotel based on your religion, race, gender, etc?

Some groups are afforded special legal protections because historically they have suffered systematic discrimination, for example against certain religious groups, races or LGBT people.
Some groups have not suffered systematic discrimination, for example furries or Faberge egg collectors. That’s why they do not get a special protective status.
If there is one New York baker that refuses to serve Boston Red Sox fans that‘s not a reason to add a law banning discrimination based on sports team affiliation. If it ever becomes a widespread epidemic we can revisit the issue and decide if sports team affiliation is important enough to warrant protection. Until then we stick with a limited government approach.