Homosexual Marriage

[Jack]

Sarcasm used to expose stupidity.
Works for me.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Protostar What does everyone think of this? How about we get the government out of marriage altogehter? Why recognize anyone's marriage? I never intend to get married, so my partner and I will not be able to reap the benefits that the government offers married folks. Will that make our relationship worth any less than married folks? No, so why should they get perks and not everyone? I don't feel the government should be involved in marriage on any level, federal, state, or local.

That's easy. Because anyone currently entitled to -- and receiving -- the bennies don't want to give them up.

Despite fawning over promotion and support of families in this thread, and despite the fact that the bennies are unequal, it's really about I-got-mine-so-to-hell-with-you.

[Dirty Name]

I never intend to get married, so my partner and I will not be able to reap the benefits that the government offers married folks. Will that make our relationship worth any less than married folks? No, so why should they get perks and not everyone?

Because heterosexual people - having natural sexual relations - often produce offspring. Having a child results in economic and physical sacrifice for pregnant women. Also the offspring represent a compelling interest of the state insofar as the biological parent's failure to care for them results in substantial costs to the state and, generally speaking, decreased success in raising the offspring. Clearly, the biological parenting model is the most efficient model from the state's big picture perspective.

State recognition of marriage also helps mitigate the economic and physical sacrifices made by child-bearing women, including those women who never get pregnant but who make sacrifices on the assumption they might.

Therefore, the state has a compelling interest to protect women in obvious, child-producing relationships, and the state also has a compelling interest to encourage responsible biological parenthood (not conception, but parenthood) over all other parenting models.

To the extent that other forms of parenthood are necessary, the state already has mechanisms in place to stimulate them (adoption tax credits, foster parent subsidies, and in many cases, medicaid coverage to name a few).

To the extent that some heterosexual relationships do not result in offspring, the state would defeat it's own purpose (strenghtening relationships between potential biological parents) if they limit marriage recognition to couples who have already produced children. Further, in most cases, the state would incur greater cost to filter infertile couples out of the system than by simply recognizing all heterosexual marriages.

The system works as designed. Getting rid of it just because you don't think it's "fair" to everyone requires us to turn a blind eye toward the very real fact that couples are not granted equality in the same sense that individuals are.

[Dirty Name]

Sarcasm used to expose stupidity.

It still requires the sarcasm to apply to existing arguments. But that didn't happen. Nice baseless insult though. It proves you don't have a grasp on the real reasons for opposing gay marriage.

[Jack]

It proves you don't have a grasp on the real reasons for opposing gay marriage.

How could I not after reading most of your 700+ posts on the subject?
Like I said, I don't care what your opinion is, I think it was good satire.

[Dirty Name]

Despite fawning over promotion and support of families in this thread, and despite the fact that the bennies are unequal, it's really about I-got-mine-so-to-hell-with-you.

There is no way any advocate of gay marriage could EVER admit that the state has something to gain by promoting the notion of traditional family, because, gee, that would mean that you have no case. And ultimately, the question remains - are traditional couples REALLY equal to gay couples?

I think I've shown over the course of this thread that any real, side-by-side comparison necessarily results in the conclusion that traditional couples produce more benefits to the state, and make sacrifices to do so, whereas same-sex couples do not produce the same benefits, and certainly do not experience the same level of sacrifice within their relationships.

But you keep trying to convince yourself that we just hate gay people, or we just want to keep our benefits, and that it has nothing to do with very real arguments against same sex "marriage."

[Protostar]

Quote by: Dirty Name Because heterosexual people - having natural sexual relations - often produce offspring. Having a child results in economic and physical sacrifice for pregnant women. Also the offspring represent a compelling interest of the state insofar as the biological parent's failure to care for them results in substantial costs to the state and, generally speaking, decreased success in raising the offspring. Clearly, the biological parenting model is the most efficient model from the state's big picture perspective. State recognition of marriage also helps mitigate the economic and physical sacrifices made by child-bearing women, including those women who never get pregnant but who make sacrifices on the assumption they might. Therefore, the state has a compelling interest to protect women in obvious, child-producing relationships, and the state also has a compelling interest to encourage responsible biological parenthood (not conception, but parenthood) over all other parenting models. To the extent that other forms of parenthood are necessary, the state already has mechanisms in place to stimulate them (adoption tax credits, foster parent subsidies, and in many cases, medicaid coverage to name a few). To the extent that some heterosexual relationships do not result in offspring, the state would defeat it's own purpose (strenghtening relationships between potential biological parents) if they limit marriage recognition to couples who have already produced children. Further, in most cases, the state would incur greater cost to filter infertile couples out of the system than by simply recognizing all heterosexual marriages. The system works as designed. Getting rid of it just because you don't think it's "fair" to everyone requires us to turn a blind eye toward the very real fact that couples are not granted equality in the same sense that individuals are.

So based on this, to satisfy the best interests fo the state, it would be better to discourage people to have children rather than encourage. That way, the state would not have to worry about having to take care of peoples children. I really don't care about the sacrifice of pregnant women. They are pregnant of their own accord. I don't see why they should be afforded special perks because of a personal choice they made. Overall, government recognition of marriage is socialism, and socialism is bad no matter what the intentions. Get the government out of marriage on all levels and put everyone on equal legal standing.

[Livemike]

Quote by: Dirty Name Because heterosexual people - having natural sexual relations - often produce offspring. Having a child results in economic and physical sacrifice for pregnant women. Also the offspring represent a compelling interest of the state insofar as the biological parent's failure to care for them results in substantial costs to the state and, generally speaking, decreased success in raising the offspring.

Homosexual people often produce offspring too nowdays. In fact many of them
always did. The offspring doesn't represent a compelling interest of the State because
they don't own or control it. It's true that if the offspring is not cared for there might be
expenses for the State, but that's true for almost anything.

Quote by: Dirty Name Clearly, the biological parenting model is the most efficient model from the state's big picture perspective. State recognition of marriage also helps mitigate the economic and physical sacrifices made by child-bearing women, including those women who never get pregnant but who make sacrifices on the assumption they might.

Well no, having a contract to provide for a woman in the event she gets pregnant
does that. State recognition of "marriage" limits the forms of those contracts and thus
makes it harder to mitigate those sacrifices.

Quote by: Dirty Name Therefore, the state has a compelling interest to protect women in obvious, child-producing relationships, and the state also has a compelling interest to encourage responsible biological parenthood (not conception, but parenthood) over all other parenting models.

Again no. There is no evidence that "responsible biological parenthood" is the
best option in all cases. In fact considering the number of adopted children it's
clear that it isn't. So the State has no more reason to promote it that any other
workable childrearing model.

Quote by: Dirty Name To the extent that other forms of parenthood are necessary, the state already has mechanisms in place to stimulate them (adoption tax credits, foster parent subsidies, and in many cases, medicaid coverage to name a few). To the extent that some heterosexual relationships do not result in offspring, the state would defeat it's own purpose (strenghtening relationships between potential biological parents) if they limit marriage recognition to couples who have already produced children. Further, in most cases, the state would incur greater cost to filter infertile couples out of the system than by simply recognizing all heterosexual marriages. The system works as designed. Getting rid of it just because you don't think it's "fair" to everyone requires us to turn a blind eye toward the very real fact that couples are not granted equality in the same sense that individuals are.

Well if you're not granting equality in recognition of relationships you're not granting
equality to the individuals in those relationships.

[Dirty Name]

How could I not after reading most of your 700+ posts on the subject?

Don't ask me, dude, but what you are calling "satire" doesn't apply to any of my 700+ posts on the subject - it applies to arguments pulled from thin air and lamely claimed to be that of gay marriage opponents like me.

The post was really just a classic illustration of debate against strawman arguments. Where's Italiangm - the resident expert on that subject?

[Dirty Name]

So based on this, to satisfy the best interests fo the state, it would be better to discourage people to have children rather than encourage.

Nope. I've covered this, oh, about 100 pages ago. The state also has a compelling interest to exist in perpetuity, which can only be achieved through procreation between heterosexual couples. And while procreation is going to happen with or without marriage, discouraging procreation is another matter entirely.

[Protostar]

Quote by: Dirty Name Nope. I've covered this, oh, about 100 pages ago. The state also has a compelling interest to exist in perpetuity, which can only be achieved through procreation between heterosexual couples. And while procreation is going to happen with or without marriage, discouraging procreation is another matter entirely.

So what's marriage got to do with any of it? If procreation is going to happen anyway, why not stop all government recognition of marriages?

[Dirty Name]

I really don't care about the sacrifice of pregnant women. They are pregnant of their own accord. I don't see why they should be afforded special perks because of a personal choice they made.

OK, so can I fire a woman at my company because she gets pregnant of her own accord? Should our society treat pregnant women as idiots for getting pregnant and making personal sacrifices that result in economic and physical hardships for them - even if society has an interest in procreation?

[Dirty Name]

So what's marriage got to do with any of it? If procreation is going to happen anyway, why not stop all government recognition of marriages?

Because government recognition of marriage has NOTHING to do with procreation. You brought it up, not me. I said that the purpose of legal marriage is to promote biological parenthood, which is the most efficient form of relationship for caring for children.

[Protostar]

Quote by: Dirty Name OK, so can I fire a woman at my company because she gets pregnant of her own accord? Should our society treat pregnant women as idiots for getting pregnant and making personal sacrifices that result in economic and physical hardships for them - even if society has an interest in procreation?

IMO, it is. She presents a liability to the company because of the potential loss of productivity
with her taking maternity leave. I don't see them as idiots, only that its their choice and they should be the ones who bear the consequences of it. Companies or noone else should have to be punished for their decisions.

[Dirty Name]

IMO, it is. She presents a liability to the company because of the potential loss of productivity with her taking maternity leave. I don't see them as idiots, only that its their choice and they should be the ones who bear the consequences of it. Companies or noone else should have to be punished for their decisions.

OK. At least you are intellectually honest. If you support THAT sort of society, then perhaps there are other ways to achieve the same goals that are currently achieved through marriage benefits.

Unfortunately for you, the folks who believe in same-sex marriage are also the same people who believe that pregnant women should have the same value as men in the workplace. So in order to get rid of marriage, you'll first need to convince same-sex supporters like the feminists at NOW that pregnant women must suffer the consequences of their sexuality.

Oh wait... but that just leads to the promotion of abortion, another thing I'm against. So I guess I'm solidly pro-marriage.

[Protostar]

Quote by: Dirty Name OK. At least you are intellectually honest. If you support THAT sort of society, then perhaps there are other ways to achieve the same goals that are currently achieved through marriage benefits. Unfortunately for you, the folks who believe in same-sex marriage are also the same people who believe that pregnant women should have the same value as men in the workplace. So in order to get rid of marriage, you'll first need to convince same-sex supporters like the feminists at NOW that pregnant women must suffer the consequences of their sexuality. Oh wait... but that just leads to the promotion of abortion, another thing I'm against. So I guess I'm solidly pro-marriage.

You speak as if there is something wrong with that sort of society. A type of society where people bear the consequences of their own actions. You can be pro-marriage, without being pro-government sanctioned marriage. And though I could understand how it could lead to promotion of abortion (which I too am against), it would also lead to the promotion of safer sex. A pregnant woman only has as much value in the workplace as the company places on her. It's the same for all workers. The company should not be punished for someone else's decision. It makes no sense.

[Protostar]

Quote by: Dirty Name Because government recognition of marriage has NOTHING to do with procreation. You brought it up, not me. I said that the purpose of legal marriage is to promote biological parenthood, which is the most efficient form of relationship for caring for children.

Most efficient form? I know alot of kids from cohabitating/single parent households and they seem just fine. So based on this I can say that biological parenthood can be had without marriage. Marriage, in my opinion, is just a waste of time.

[Dirty Name]

You speak as if there is something wrong with that sort of society. A type of society where people bear the consequences of their own actions.

Not at all. I think that's a grand idea. But given the current state of the union, I wouldn't support the abolishment of legal marriage until liberals were ready to abolish the institutionalized mechanisms they have built to thwart personal resposibility.

[Dirty Name]

Most efficient form? I know alot of kids from cohabitating/single parent households and they seem just fine.

Statistics don't support your anecdotal evidence - even if the particular kids you know are just fine.

[DavidShankle]

I haven't read the past 200 pages and have no desire to. But I have noticed a few people suggesting with a great deal of sarcasm that we should abolish total governmental recognition of marriage. I think that's a grand idea. Homosexuals think they should have the "right" to marriage. And the crowd that promotes this belief has to be the ultimate titans of contradiction. This same crowd is pushing for the separation of church and state. And we have to ask ourselves, "What is marriage?" Long before governments started "defining" marriages, as if the definition were up for debate, its definition was set in stone. Marriage is a religious institution that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. So by our government recognizing gay marriages, or hetero marriages for that matter, is that not a direct breach in the separation of church and state? Stick to your own standards guys. In reality, the government assuming the position as an authority overseeing marriage is breaching the true definition of the establishment clause and its original purpose to protect the church from the state(not the other way around as modern liberals would have you believe). Requiring marriage licenses, courthouse marriages, legal recognition of marriages(including benefits)... all of these things are unconstitutional and are in direct conflict with the establishment clause. Just as marriage is a religious institution.... what would liberals say if governments started offering baptisms and Communions? So you don't even have to look at this from a moral point of view, even though you should. The fact of the matter is that no matter which angle you view gay marriage from, it is unlawful.