Homosexual Marriage

[Dirty Name]

Sure they do. The divorce rate will support you on that, no doubt.

Divorce rate has nothing whatsoever to do with Judeo-Christian laws, genius. NOTHING. It's called no-fault divorce, and it's NOT supported by anything remotely associated with Judeo-Christian values. Another pathetic effort.

Further, I was speaking of the values in general - the ones that are derived from the 10 Commandments, that sort of thing. You people are so desperate to belittle and poke fun that you don't even take the time to comprehend.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Dirty Name This statement is a perfect illustration that you don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. First, I never said the STATE had to recognize Judeo Christian norms. You people need to learn how to READ. I spend more time repeating myself and correcting your mistakes than anyone should have to. Quite clearly, I said CoffeeSaint's solution ignores Judeo-Christian values. Big difference. Naturally, your predictable response is to ask why our laws should consider Judeo-Christian values. Easy. First, they WORK. Second, an overwhelming number of of Americans identify with those values - the number is something like 76% of Americans identify themselves as "Christian" (link: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm). So next time, try "reading for comprehension." I know it's tough when you pre-programmed God-haters see the word "Christian" anywhere in this thread. Second, your claim that CoffeeSaint's idea would provide incentives for having a family and staying with them ignores the fact CoffeeSaint's idea is REDUNDANT. In case you don't remember, we already offer incentives in the form of tax breaks to anyone who remains the parent or guardian of a child. Finally, I just want to say that the whole idea, as well as your support of it, is about as stupid as it gets. Both of you surely realize that you have far less chance of redifining the institution of marriage in this way than you have of getting same-sex marriage legalized. You've picked the wrong hill to die on this time.

Soooo . . . how does this prove that the laws should not recognize gay marriage, again?

[Protostar]

The government is a secular institution. It is supposed to represent people of ALL backgrounds, not just people with "Judeo-Christian values". A marriage is a legal contract. The unlimited right to contract was settled in Hale vs Henkel. By denying homosexuals the right to marry, you are violating their unlimited right to contract, which is unconstitutional. That is why these gay marriage bans will be shot down, because they are unconstitutional. You don't want to marry a man? Fine then, don't. But don't stand in the way of two people and their desire to be together just because you find it "icky". Homosexuals pay taxes as well, so they should get the same benefits as heterosexual couples.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Dirty Name Divorce rate has nothing whatsoever to do with Judeo-Christian laws, genius. NOTHING. It's called no-fault divorce, and it's NOT supported by anything remotely associated with Judeo-Christian values. Another pathetic effort. Further, I was speaking of the values in general - the ones that are derived from the 10 Commandments, that sort of thing. You people are so desperate to belittle and poke fun that you don't even take the time to comprehend.

Right, right. So, gay marriage: you're against it, or what?

You need a point, before you can argue. If you're not trying to prove anything, you're just baa-ing like a sheep, and from now on, when you criticize your opponents without making a point to help support your views, I will make a sound like a sheep, to help remind you of this.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Dirty Name A) There is no such word as "acquiry." I think you mean "acquisition." No big deal, just wanted to point that out. B) The state ALREADY handsomely rewards adoptive parents with rather large tax breaks. Something on the order of $10,000 - not to mention the fact that many kids qualify for medicare or medicaid coverage throughout childhood - the parents don't pay a dime. So again, your solution acts as an incentive only to acquire or have children, but does NOTHING to strengthen the relationship before or after childrearing. Further, it ignores those people who make sacrifices to raise children of their own but who are not successful. Should they just be abandoned? Of course not. Again, the easiest, most sensible solution is the current setup. You just don't want to admit, and I understand that.

B-A-A-A-A-A-A-A

[Dirty Name]

Yes, they had children. And in cases where no children were produced, the marriage was not instantly dissolved, as would have been the case back in the Old World. Marriages here are seen as a partnership between consenting adults, not a breeding ground.

If I had a hammer I would pound this into your skull. No one is advocating the dissolution of marriages simply because they fail to produce offspring. I am growing quite weary of repeating myself here - maybe that's your strategy.

We are talking about legal benefits ONLY...tax breaks, social security benefits, and other things that serve to STRENGTHEN THE BOND. Whether or not a heterosexual couple actually produces children is IRRELEVANT! Do you hear me? Do you finally get it, numbskull???

What matters is the fact that they have the POTENTIAL* to do so. The POTENTIAL matters because, among other things, people (primarily the woman) make sacrifices in order to prepare for child-rearing - even if they are ultimately unsuccessful...

*Note: I know you have a hang up with the word "potential" since you claim to not have any potential. However, the word is used here in the same way that a dark alley represents "potential" danger to passersby - even if no threat is in fact present. Hopefully you realize that the percentages for pregnancy and childbirth in marriage are a little higher than for muggings in a dark alley though.

If they were inventions of the 20th century, then EVERYTHING you have said about the founding of this country and the historical implications of state-recognized marriage is pointless.

You wish. The fact is, I discuss only those issues here because everything else that used to be the province of married couples is now certainly available to same-sex couples in the form of legal contracts. The tax and social security issues (and privately issued medical coverage) are the only significant areas that same-sex couples do not have access to.

The fact that some pregnancies are unplanned has nothing to do with anything. The idea that the state has recognized marriage as a way to support those people who do not use birth control in their marriage bed is laughable.

So let me get this straight - you think the state thinks that unplanned pregnancies are a laughing matter?

Okay, so we aren't talking about marriage historically. So we'll ignore this: Quote: With that in mind, the state PREFERS that all such procreative activity happens within the bonds of marriage. Your idea that marriage should only occur AFTER conception is absurd, it ignores Judeo-Christian traditions and mores, and it utterly fails to achieve the goal of strengthening the bonds around a nuclear family.(emphasis added)

Dude, you've got to be the most clueless person I have ever debated on these forums. I have NEVER had to explain so much to anyone else, but here goes (again)...

YOU are the one who argued in favor of not legally recognizing marriages until they produced children. YOU, not me. To counter that point, I brought up Judeo-Christian traditions - you know, the ones that advocate marriage before sexual intercourse. With your proposal, marriage wouldn't happen until after conception. Therefore, to comply with one's religious views AND your bizarre idea, a couple would have to get married TWICE - once in the church, and once in the hospital's birthing ward. I included the phrase "Judeo-Christian values" to emphasize this point - not to point out the historical origins of marriage. Sheesh.

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Okay, so we aren't talking about marriage historically. So we'll ignore this:

Quote by: Dirty Name You can believe all day in your heart that this is not the motivation behind the legal recognitions of marriage. But a quick look the context and history of the institution will confirm my claims. Sure, it's not explicitly stated that way in the law, because back in the good old days, it was just obvious. People got married and they had children. That's the way society survived.

Again, LEGAL is the key phrase. Maybe you missed it? There is a HUGE difference between the LEGAL (American) history of marriage and the complete history of the institution. Please try and understand that difference, as it's key to our discussion.

If we are discussing the general recognition of marital unions by the state, let's talk about the marriage unions. These do not include the children. If you want to discuss homosexual marriage without bringing up children, I'd be happy to discuss this more. But I'm not going to repeat what I have said unless you disprove me, to my standards, not yours. Thank you for the debate.

Just ask yourself one question and answer it honestly: Does a same-sex marriage literally represent the EXACT same thing to the state as does a traditional marriage?

If your honest answer is "No," then the ask yourself why the state should treat them equally. This is what our debate should be about.

If your answer is "Yes," then you clearly haven't thought this issue through - since the overwhelming percentage of sexual relationships in this country have the potential to create offspring, and since it can be statistically proven that the state benefits most when said offspring is raised by a mother AND a father, which in turn is best achieved through the bonds of marriage.

My argument is as simple as that, and advocates of same-sex marriage CAN'T admit that the two are unequal, so they are forced into the intellectually dishonest position of arguing that marriage is NOT about children - despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary (namely, the staggering statistics showing most marriages do in fact result in children).

[Jack]

If your honest answer is "No,"

If your answer is "Yes," then you clearly haven't thought this issue through

So if we agree with you we're being honest, but if we don't, we haven't thought it through?
Are you really Zealot? Come on, you can tell us.

[M.M.Knox]

First, I never said the STATE had to recognize Judeo Christian norms. You people need to learn how to READ. I spend more time repeating myself and correcting your mistakes than anyone should have to. Quite clearly, I said CoffeeSaint's solution ignores Judeo-Christian values. Big difference. Naturally, your predictable response is to ask why our laws should consider Judeo-Christian values. Easy. First, they WORK. Second, an overwhelming number of of Americans identify with those values - the number is something like 76% of Americans identify themselves as "Christian" (link: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm).

This point would be valid if only marriage based on Christian values were not a hindrance to what you believe the purpose of marriage to be. Let's sample your logic: If we allow marriage to exist in a relationship before children do, people will believe marriage is about mutual commitment between partners: a detraction from it's original purpose of providing further stability for raising children. Now this means that less of an emphasis is placed on child-rearing and the birth-rate : quality of life ratio will not reach full potential and the state loses out.

As to your point that my support of CoffeeSaints' argument (actually, I believe I made it up) is stupid, well, fuck you, I don't support it. In fact, I don't buy into your bullshit reasoning at all. I am merely showing you the appropriate place your faulty logic should take you.

A) There is no such word as "acquiry." I think you mean "acquisition." No big deal, just wanted to point that out.

Yes there is, actually, although, to your credit was made obsolete by acquisition. Worth commenting on only if you're a total petty jackass.

B) The state ALREADY handsomely rewards adoptive parents with rather large tax breaks. Something on the order of $10,000 - not to mention the fact that many kids qualify for medicare or medicaid coverage throughout childhood - the parents don't pay a dime. So again, your solution acts as an incentive only to acquire or have children, but does NOTHING to strengthen the relationship before or after childrearing. Further, it ignores those people who make sacrifices to raise children of their own but who are not successful. Should they just be abandoned? Of course not. Again, the easiest, most sensible solution is the current setup. You just don't want to admit, and I understand that.

How does marriage create strength in a relationship other than making a legal recognition of a couple as seperate highly difficult and consequently emotionally/financially wearing?

Also, what interest has the state in sentimentally comforting the infertile?

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: ProtoStar By denying homosexuals the right to marry, you are violating their unlimited right to contract, which is unconstitutional. That is why these gay marriage bans will be shot down, because they are unconstitutional. You don't want to marry a man? Fine then, don't. But don't stand in the way of two people and their desire to be together just because you find it "icky". Homosexuals pay taxes as well, so they should get the same benefits as heterosexual couples.

Tired arguments debunked long ago. But I'll spare you the trouble of looking them up...

A marriage is a legal contract. The unlimited right to contract was settled in Hale vs Henkel. By denying homosexuals the right to marry, you are violating their unlimited right to contract, which is unconstitutional.

Marriage is a legal contract between one man and one woman and which qualifies the couple for additional legal benefits from the state. It does NOT preclude two men from entering into a similar contract of their own, even IF it won't qualify them for the additional benefits. Your constitutional argument is flawed, as Hale vs. Henkel doesn't guarantee equal outcomes for all who enter into similar contracts.

You don't want to marry a man? Fine then, don't. But don't stand in the way of two people and their desire to be together just because you find it "icky".

No one is stopping them from marrying each other. They are only prevented from claiming certain legal benefits that are available to other couples who meet the opposite-gender-pair standard.

Homosexuals pay taxes as well, so they should get the same benefits as heterosexual couples.

Whoa. You switched from talking about individuals to talking about couples. That doesn't fly. If you said "Homosexuals pay taxes as well, so they should get the same benefits as heterosexuals," then I could hardly argue with you. And I wouldn't have to, because they already do.

[Dirty Name]

Let's sample your logic: If we allow marriage to exist in a relationship before children do, people will believe marriage is about mutual commitment between partners: a detraction from it's original purpose of providing further stability for raising children. Now this means that less of an emphasis is placed on child-rearing and the birth-rate : quality of life ratio will not reach full potential and the state loses out.

Your interpretation of my logic and the flawed conclusion you reach are unworthy of further discussion. I can't make it any easier. Straight couples in sexual relationships have kids, while gay couples don't. Kids born in marriage relationships are statistically superior to kids born outside of marriage (generally speaking - there are exceptions, of course).

If we combine these two factors, we begin to understand that straight couples in sexual relationships represent a serious consideration for the state, whereas gay sexual relationships are virtually insignificant.

There IS a difference between the two, and the marital benefits available to traditional couples are simply a reflection of these factors. It really isn't more complex than this.

[Dirty Name]

I am merely showing you the appropriate place your faulty logic should take you.

Except that it's CoffeeSaint's faulty logic.

[Dirty Name]

Yes there is, actually, although, to your credit was made obsolete by acquisition. Worth commenting on only if you're a total petty jackass.

Good for you! You either looked it up after I pointed it out, or I saved you from obsolescense. Either way, you're a better person thanks to me, though we'll have to work on the ways you show gratitude.

How does marriage create strength in a relationship other than making a legal recognition of a couple as seperate highly difficult and consequently emotionally/financially wearing?

Call me a petty jackass, but the tail end of your sentence is tough to get through. I think you mean to say that marriage makes life more difficult for couples, but I'm not really sure. If that's your opinion, marriage isn't for you. All I can say in response is that your entire premise is flawed and I wouldn't know where to begin to straigten you out.

Also, what interest has the state in sentimentally comforting the infertile?

I'm unaware of which "sentimental" comfort you are talking about. What I was refering to are those situations where, for example, a woman gives up a career in order to settle down and raise a family, even if she's ultimately unsuccessful due to any number of reasons - infertility, miscarriages, child death at a young age, etc.

[Protostar]

Quote by: Dirty Name Marriage is a legal contract between one man and one woman and which qualifies the couple for additional legal benefits from the state. It does NOT preclude two men from entering into a similar contract of their own, even IF it won't qualify them for the additional benefits. Your constitutional argument is flawed, as Hale vs. Henkel doesn't guarantee equal outcomes for all who enter into similar contracts.

What do you mean it doesn't gurantee eqaul outcomes? It gurantees an unlimited right to contract between two or more of age consenting adults. By not allowing homosexuals the right to marry you are violating this right.

Quote by: Dirty Name No one is stopping them from marrying each other. They are only prevented from claiming certain legal benefits that are available to other couples who meet the opposite-gender-pair standard.

And why is that? Why should that standard be allowed to stand? Who does it hurt by allowing homosexuals the right to marry each other and claim the same benefits offered to heterosexuals?

Quote by: Dirty Name Whoa. You switched from talking about individuals to talking about couples. That doesn't fly. If you said "Homosexuals pay taxes as well, so they should get the same benefits as heterosexuals," then I could hardly argue with you. And I wouldn't have to, because they already do.

I guess I should have said homosexual couples. Homosexual COUPLES pay taxes as well, so they should get same benefits as heterosexual couples.

[Dirty Name]

By not allowing homosexuals the right to marry you are violating this right.

You're premise is flawed from the start. Marriage isn't JUST a legal contract, but it carries the force of one. But since homosexuals are free to enter into a contract of their own, they aren't denied anything except the additional benefits bestowed on those individuals who qualify.

[Protostar]

Quote by: Dirty Name You're premise is flawed from the start. Marriage isn't JUST a legal contract, but it carries the force of one. But since homosexuals are free to enter into a contract of their own, they aren't denied anything except the additional benefits bestowed on those individuals who qualify.

What do you mean marriage isn't JUST a legal contract? If it carries the force of a legal contract, then it IS a legal contract. Since homosexuals (and everyone else) have an unlimited right to contract, denying homosexuals the right to marry is unconstitutional. No way around that.

[Dirty Name]

And why is that? Why should that standard be allowed to stand? Who does it hurt by allowing homosexuals the right to marry each other and claim the same benefits offered to heterosexuals?

Why should it be overturned? Every individual is treated equally, people are only guaranteed that much. We are not guaranteed equal outcomes in life, only equal treatment. Everyone has the same rights to enter into the same contracts. If one chooses to enter into a contract that doesn't result in additional benefits, it's no one's fault but that persons.

As for your arguments that it doesn't hurt anyone else, I would disagree. You cannot demand philosophical equality and still deny polygamy, incest or other sorts of relationships. I am confident that I could make a slippery-slope argument that legalizing gay marriage would result in negative consequences.

I guess I should have said homosexual couples. Homosexual COUPLES pay taxes as well, so they should get same benefits as heterosexual couples.

Why should they? As taxpayers, we aren't legally entitled to claim benefits from the state unless we qualify for those benefits. Even though you pay taxes, you can't file a claim with your state's Unemployment Compensation Bureau unless you meet the qualifications. Individuals forming a same-sex union don't qualify for married-filing jointly status, nor to they qualify for social security survivor benefits. That's really about it. If there are other benefits you think they should get, which can't be gained via contract, I'd like to know about it.

[Dirty Name]

Since homosexuals (and everyone else) have an unlimited right to contract, denying homosexuals the right to marry is unconstitutional.

Tell that to the lawyers who drafted Ohio's Marriage Amendment. Contrary to your assertions, plenty of lawyers signed off on the ballot initiative here, and some 70% of Ohioans seemed to agree. With a Supreme Court about to gain yet another conservative, chances are your opinion will be in the minority on this issue.

By the way, the unlimited right to contract is in fact limited to legal activities. If it is illegal for a same-sex couple to present themselves as "married," their only legal recourse is to enter into a similar contract that does not require marriage. Since that option is available to them, they can hardly claim they are denied their constitutional rights.

[Protostar]

Quote by: Dirty Name Why should it be overturned? Every individual is treated equally, people are only guaranteed that much. We are not guaranteed equal outcomes in life, only equal treatment. Everyone has the same rights to enter into the same contracts. If one chooses to enter into a contract that doesn't result in additional benefits, it's no one's fault but that persons.

Yes, equal treatment under law. By denying homosexuals the right to marry, you not treating them equally. And no everyone doesn't have the right to enter the same contracts or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Quote by: Dirty Name As for your arguments that it doesn't hurt anyone else, I would disagree. You cannot demand philosophical equality and still deny polygamy, incest or other sorts of relationships. I am confident that I could make a slippery-slope argument that legalizing gay marriage would result in negative consequences.

I have no problem with polygamy and neither should you. As long as the people involved are of age consenting adults, then there is no problem. Your rights have no been infringed upon in any way. Incest is illegal and will stay illegal because the children resulting from such a relationship would most likely be physically and/or mentally handicapped.

Quote by: Dirty Name Why should they? As taxpayers, we aren't legally entitled to claim benefits from the state unless we qualify for those benefits. Even though you pay taxes, you can't file a claim with your state's Unemployment Compensation Bureau unless you meet the qualifications. Individuals forming a same-sex union don't qualify for married-filing jointly status, nor to they qualify for social security survivor benefits. That's really about it. If there are other benefits you think they should get, which can't be gained via contract, I'd like to know about it.

And why shouldn't they? I don't understand why they shouldn't because their relationship carries the same weight as a hetero relationship.

[Protostar]

Quote by: Dirty Name Tell that to the lawyers who drafted Ohio's Marriage Amendment. Contrary to your assertions, plenty of lawyers signed off on the ballot initiative here, and some 70% of Ohioans seemed to agree. With a Supreme Court about to gain yet another conservative, chances are your opinion will be in the minority on this issue.

In time that will change. Gay marriage is legal in Mass. and that state hasn't fallen apart. Society hasn't ended there.

Quote by: Dirty Name By the way, the unlimited right to contract is in fact limited to legal activities. If it is illegal for a same-sex couple to present themselves as "married," their only legal recourse is to enter into a similar contract that does not require marriage. Since that option is available to them, they can hardly claim they are denied their constitutional rights.

The right to unlimited contract applies so long as the contract does not infringe on anyone elses rights. Homosexuals entering into the contract of marriage does not infringe on your rights in anyway.