Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post

Waychel · Jan 12, 2005, 02:20 am

I am against the federal recognition of gay marriage because I see it bringing more abuse than benefit to the legal institution of marriage as a whole. The fact of the matter is that nobody is denying homosexuals the right to get married; we are only denying them federal recognition as a married couple. Rights to property, control of assets in the event of incapacitation, inheritance among many other things are benefits to marriage that can be established within a living trust for a homosexual couple. What are homosexuals being denied in the end? The social security benefits of their spouse.

Considering that every sociological study ever conducted upon the homosexual community substantiates the conclusion that they are both promiscuous as much as they are at the highest chance of any social group to contract AIDs, the risk is exceptionally high that homosexuals would marry other homosexuals to benefit from the event of their death. Similarly, the social roles in homosexual relationships are far different from the social roles in heterosexual relationships, which the regulation of entitlement to community property and alimony were formulated in consideration to. The entire legal process in this regard would come into question.

Most damning of all to me however, is the grounds in which homosexuals argue that they be allowed the right to marry. If we place no descrimination upon the legal institution of marriage regarding gender, then how may we continue to descriminate upon it regarding the issue of numbers? The Mormons were arguing the issue of marriage long before the Homosexual community ever became widely established in the country. If we were to give federal recognition to gay marriage under the pretenses of "equality", then we would then need to relinquish this same right to polygamist groups. Once again, the issue of alimony and community property becomes of greater issue. Similarly, how could we continue to argue the issues of adultery and bigomy in relation to divorce?

Marriage as recognized by law essentially comes down to being about law. If homosexuals are going to argue against it, then they need to address the issue of how marriage law protects people and how the submission of their social group may infringe upon that. Just my two cents...

Jan 12, 2005, 02:20 am	#153 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	I am against the federal recognition of gay marriage because I see it bringing more abuse than benefit to the legal institution of marriage as a whole. The fact of the matter is that nobody is denying homosexuals the right to get married; we are only denying them federal recognition as a married couple. Rights to property, control of assets in the event of incapacitation, inheritance among many other things are benefits to marriage that can be established within a living trust for a homosexual couple. What are homosexuals being denied in the end? The social security benefits of their spouse. Considering that every sociological study ever conducted upon the homosexual community substantiates the conclusion that they are both promiscuous as much as they are at the highest chance of any social group to contract AIDs, the risk is exceptionally high that homosexuals would marry other homosexuals to benefit from the event of their death. Similarly, the social roles in homosexual relationships are far different from the social roles in heterosexual relationships, which the regulation of entitlement to community property and alimony were formulated in consideration to. The entire legal process in this regard would come into question. Most damning of all to me however, is the grounds in which homosexuals argue that they be allowed the right to marry. If we place no descrimination upon the legal institution of marriage regarding gender, then how may we continue to descriminate upon it regarding the issue of numbers? The Mormons were arguing the issue of marriage long before the Homosexual community ever became widely established in the country. If we were to give federal recognition to gay marriage under the pretenses of "equality", then we would then need to relinquish this same right to polygamist groups. Once again, the issue of alimony and community property becomes of greater issue. Similarly, how could we continue to argue the issues of adultery and bigomy in relation to divorce? Marriage as recognized by law essentially comes down to being about law. If homosexuals are going to argue against it, then they need to address the issue of how marriage law protects people and how the submission of their social group may infringe upon that. Just my two cents... Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.