Argument magician: Gayness

*Produces magic wand from nose* For my first performance here today, I shall start with the statements: - Gays hinder the economy, not help it - Gays hinder governmental change - Gayness cannot be explained by genetics - Gayness is likely a mental illness Argument 1: Gays hinder the economy It is well known and logical that a couple without children will have less outgoing expenses. They don't need school uniforms, lunch money or buses, university savings etc. They are free to invest their money in different things. This probably somewhat changes economic stratification wouldn't you say? Observation: Our first problem arises when considering the subject of tax and social security on this new economic stratification or hierarchy. Our present currency and banking practices are known to cause inflation and devalue any savings we might have. This problem is particularly noticeable with social security, and in effect, causes the next generation to pay for the previous one, rather than paying for themselves. Hypothesis A: If gays never have any children then this will cause the next generation to have to pay for their retirement. Hypothesis B: The second problem is that gays still use non-renewable resources such as gasoline or food GDP when they have no intentions of contributing to the gene pool or social security. They are distinct from people who just fail to breed. This will take money out of the pockets of straight or breeding couples and effectively use it to back-pay the gays for just consuming resources with no net positive effect. After all, their not going to pay more than everyone else for the same goods, are they? Theory: Genetics and evolution tells us that animals will often exploit any resource they can get in order to reproduce their own genes.[2] If we apply this same rule to the gays we find that they are exploiting a government legislative weakness in order to steal money from straight peoples children, in the future. Provided that they really, don't, have any children of their own. This problem is compounded by the declining birth rate in most western countries [1]. This is typical parasitic behaviour of an institution as wasteful as government. Indeed you could say that government has a history of financing genetic dodos with welfare. The effect of this loophole is, without fail, to reduce the genetic viability of a competitor in the gene pool, namely the children. In this case, one that has had the responsibility of welfare forced upon it. From an ecological standpoint, it is not a viable tactic to have non-breeding pairs consuming resources. This ultimately drains resources for the breeding pairs and can result in extinction, population boom and busts etc. [1] There are many sources for this, but I recommend gapminder world with the child per woman selected in the bottom right corner. Argument 2: Gays hinder government change Observation: It is often said that gays provide more money for ‘the people', with the so called ‘pink pound'. However, men are paid more money than women, and subsequently pay more in income tax. The same is true for gay men. This means that the only group they benefit first and foremost is the government, weather or not this money ever reaches society is another matter and probably depends on if you believe in trickle down economics. Hypothesis: Furthermore, it should be understood that gay men that are appealed to under the pink pound still benefit, WHATEVER government is in power, as long as it supports gay rights. Even if that government is bad with another groups rights. For instance, there were many gays in Nazi Germany, this was discouraged but not repressed as brutally as other groups. Unfortunately the status quo remained on the side of the Nazis precisely because of gay cooperation. If you're a moron and believe in godwins law then we shall move to the US, Nato or Israel, all of which support gay rights in one way or another but are presently destroying the rights of Arabs. This is still down to taxes payed by the status quo. Theory: Meaning, that in practice the government is lending out credibility to a highly incredible group, in exchange for money and that the pink pound is actually an attempt to legitimise government and income taxation as a prerequisite to gay rights. It could even be characterised as a stealth tax. In short, gay rights now represent part of the status quo, not because it is deserved, but because political parties need them to win votes and pay taxes. This makes it illegal to make points like argument 1 and 2, which challenge the deservedness of their status as a social group. Argument 3: Gayness cannot be explained by genetics and is likely a mental illness The medical definition of disease is a departure from health characterised by symptoms. The purpose of genes is to reproduce, when they fail to reproduce this is called natural selection. There is a massive body of evidence showing that genes will do anything to ensure they can reproduce. Therefore creating a body which doesn't reproduce is a colossal waste of resources, it is argued that they help their relatives reproduce, but mathematically speaking, there is still a greater advantage in ALL relatives reproducing. Indeed statistically the birth rate is higher in countries where less children survive. Therefore gayness is a disease. Given the suspicious lack of DNA evidence, it is likely to be a mental disease and this option has not been properly explored because it is a taboo for science due to political pressure as explained in argument 2. I have more evidence on this, but that's all for now. For my opponent to rebut my argument, it is likely they will have to: Argument 1 -disprove inflation -prove the legitimacy of gays right not to reproduce -disprove that it is a waste of resources Argument 2 -prove the pink pound works differently -prove that the government does not alienate peoples rights based on payment Argument 3 -disprove natural selection -disprove genetics PS: I'm sorry guys, i tried to make it humorous. In some ways i needed it more than you. But pragmatism still took over...