You state this like there aren't numerous other ways to fund these programs already.
We can start with actually taxing people with multiple piles of Scrooge McDuck money, as opposed to the current approach of cutting social programs that benefit millions of citizens to provide even MORE tax breaks for these "people".
Your statement:
> Homosexuality and sodomy
They do affect the future population count and this will affect the pension of everyone. They also will result in persons not being born. You can say that this is way less of importance then the right to do whatever you want, but it is not without effect to others.
===============================================================================
I assumed you were concerned with all social programs and not just your personal pension, hence the statement. Fixing pensions, while all other social safety net programs get gutted is not the way. Basic breeding by heterosexuals isn't the panacea you seem to believe it is, imo.
The real issue with US population growth is the insane world we live in. It's not "the gays failing to procreate". That's a laughable statement.
WTF would want to bring children into the world when literal criminals, rapists and alcoholics are running things, racism is on the rise and cheered, laws are optional for specific groups of people while abused for everyone else, SCOTUS is a complete parody of a court, Congress is run by wholly unserious people, prices of everything are rocketing up not because of genuine supply chain issues, or similar, but because of plain, old greed and much, much, much more.
Let's not forget that AI is being developed at a record pace to replace jobs, while shafting the working class, instead of being used to uplift everyone.
"The gays" were never the problem and never will be for population growth.
Yes, I was only talking about pensions, I don't think homosexuality has an effect on any other social security system.
Trying to fix pensions by forbidding homosexuality is laughable yes. There aren't even enough homosexuals for that to matter.
However a standard way to evaluate social norms is the categorical imperative. If everybody was homosexual we would have an issue there. But the only thing I wanted to say is that it does affect people, I didn't want to propose or defend any policy change.
Also I wasn't talking about money. This only gets you a portion of the future economy, the amount of young people decides how much economy there will be.
> WTF would want to bring children into the world when literal criminals, rapists and alcoholics are running things, racism is on the rise and cheered, laws are optional for specific groups of people while abused for everyone else, SCOTUS is a complete parody of a court, Congress is run by wholly unserious people, prices of everything are rocketing up not because of genuine supply chain issues, or similar, but because of plain, old greed and much, much, much more.
I don't live in the USA, so I don't think I should have opinions about your internal issues, but I do think you have a problem with authoritarianism there. But whose country hasn't so who am I to judge. However I do not understand this sentiment. How does it matter if the world is a shit show? When wasn't it that in the large scale of things? That seams to be the exception not the rule. It also completely fails to account, that people tend to have more children in darker times not less. Also how do you improve that world if not by raising children. You won't have any more lasting impact on the way of life of someone than on your children. "Science advances on funeral at a time." I think this applies to everything.
The categorical imperative always admits more than one possible rule. The rule that works here is that everyone should have sex with whatever gender they want to - not that everyone should be homosexual. Since most people are straight, the human race won't go extinct.
"It's bad to breathe molecule #346739572384143 of oxygen, because if everyone would breathe molecule #346739572384143 of oxygen, we'd all share the same lungs and be some kind of Siamese octbillionuplets"
The categorical imperative says: decide rules that would be good if everybody followed them, and then follow those rules. "Everyone should be homosexual" seems to be a bad rule, but "everyone should have sex with whatever gender they like" seems to be a good rule, so you should follow it. It doesn't say you shouldn't be homosexual because it would be bad if everyone was homosexual.
That would be more akin to say that everyone must sleep with the first lady, so no it's not the same thing at all. What I'm stating is more to decide whether you should breath a gas or a liquid.
> The categorical imperative says: decide rules that would be good if everybody followed them
No, it's a measure to decide which rules should can be considered good in the first place.
> "everyone should have sex with whatever gender they like"
If you think this a good rule, then you should also be content, with a world where everyone is homosexual. Are you?
> It doesn't say you shouldn't be homosexual because it would be bad if everyone was homosexual.
That's exactly what it says. It builds on the fact, that rules that only apply for some people, are generally considered to be unjust. If a rule is acceptable, it has to be still acceptable, if everyone would use it in the same direction. If you don't like that result, then either the rule is bad, or you accept different standards for different people. ("Rules for thee, but not for me.")
We can start with actually taxing people with multiple piles of Scrooge McDuck money, as opposed to the current approach of cutting social programs that benefit millions of citizens to provide even MORE tax breaks for these "people".
Are you even serious with this?