/lit/ - Literature

>>10548014
I like role play, you got it chief.

>I don't want
This is an emotional appeal with 0 rational explanation. We should not base laws, especially ones with effects as far reaching as a carpet ban on homosexuality, on mere feelings. There are practical considerations to be made that come before your delicate sensibilities. Contrary to how you might feel about gays, their rights don't end where your feelings begin.

If you can't justify the massive tax hike, state power and economic damage that would result from us placating your wounded pride then there is no reason to lend credence to your ideas.

>We live in a democracy
This is true

>and the majority of men are rightfully homophobes and the majority of men will vote no gays allowed in america
This is false
62% of Americans support gay marriage:
http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

While third world attitudes towards rights do exist, they are only valid within their own spheres of influence. For the same reasons we don't hurl rocks at women not wearing burkas, value the right to bear arms and believe that a government must be representative of the people, we will not base our laws on the laws of other nations. Especially not nations financially worse off than our own.

I've got 2 points I need you to understand before I combine them:
>Cultural attitudes are malleable and the opinions of the populace can be changed over time
>Our economy is fundamentally global and an increase in skilled labor across the world will by it's very nature provide us with greater riches

Lets combine these two thoughts:
>By encouraging or at the very least not hindering the development of LGBTQ rights across the world we can become an even wealthier species and enjoy a greater standard of health, security and overall prosperity

What you are asking us as a society to do is to abandon our principles and (most importantly) our self interest so that we can cater create a safe space for you on the taxpayer dime.