"Prop 8 - The Musical" starring Jack Black, John C. Reilly,

@Rob4WR817 Haha, the funniest part!

@1modelcitizen
(continued)
Is it possible that your whole point is trying to prove that the line "There's money to be made" is incorrect? If so (which is not obvious from your post), well, I see it as a joke and not a real argument. It is more like the assumption that the voters would have decided differently if there had been something to gain from the failure of Prop 8.

If you are indeed talking about Prop 8, civil rights are not a reward for economic success. So what is your point?

@1modelcitizen

re 1: I have some trouble parsing your sentences. Are you proposing gays should join the army or not? If you do, the federal law Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654) aka "Don't ask, don't tell" would have to repealed. If not, what are you saying?

re 3: I brought up marriage because I thought you were talking about Prop 8.

(I'll continue in another post.)

You know being gay does not have ANY impact on a person's fertility? Gay folk have children ALL the time, and always have. They may not follow the *traditional* means, although many do--I know a fair number of gay men with ex-wives, and gay women with ex-husbands, etc. All but a few have biological children, and NOT just because at one time in their lives they were attempting to play it straight, as it were.

This notion that being gay impacts fertilty is both baseless and nonsensical.

I've listened to a lot of people and I've never heard a SINGLE coherent argument against gay men and lesbians just being who they are.

It's literally as though homophobia is some kind of mental illness.

I guess that's what prejudice is. A believe system that is fundamentally irrational. When you peel back all the layers of the onion, at the center, there's nothing there.

1modelcitizen,

It sounds as though you don't know anything about homosexuality OR economics and aren't a very pleasant person in general.

Are you just pretending?

People don't "choose" their own sexual orientation. They're just born being attracted to whichever gender they're attracted to.

You're just thinking up excuses for being a bigot.

Homophobia is disordered thinking.

If we didn't have one of the highest population growths in the world amongst developed nations, I'd buy into your argument absolutely.

However, that's not the case at all, so...seems a wee bit weaker.

's more about being a group of people who all have been historically/traditionally disenfranchised or discriminated against. That's what said group has in common.

What is with the grouping of being "black, a girl, or gay" (00:12-00:16)? I'm not sure that straight black men and women appreciate being grouped with gays. If it sang "white, a man, or gay," I'd reject it. Stereotyping is a divisive tactic of more harm than humor. Try it on yourself sometime.

Sepi,

Sorry about my sentences. To be clearer: It is money, not marriage that is being considered. Economic growth relies on fertility, not nomenclature. Homopopulation increases are detrimental to fertility and precipitate economic declines. As you pointed out, there are other detrimental factors, but those are not pertinent to the economics of homosexuality. To summarize and reassert: gays reduce fertility which in turn reduces economic growth. How would you invest? Hetero or Homo?