Homosexual Marriage

[Dirty Name]

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.

So will you allow a brother and sister, mother and son, or father and daughter to enter into such a contract, if they claim they won't engage in sexual relations? Is sexual intercourse a requirement for marriage?

[Protostar]

Quote by: Dirty Name Again, no one has the right to marry a person of their choosing. The law is pretty specific as to whom we are allowed to marry (opposite gender, not related, adult). Thus, we are all treated equally under the law. You are again referring to outcomes, not to the actual treatment.

No, we are no treated equally under law because like I said, if we were we wouldn't be having this conversation. Homosexual couples are not allowed to marry for the sole reason of them being same sex. That makes no sense to me. If you are going to outlaw something it should be because the said act violates a person's rights in some way. Murder is outlawed becuase it violatesa a persons right to live. Rape is outlawed because it violates a person's right to bodily sovereignty. Homosexual marriage is outlawed because..... You finish that out for me, and make sure you address whose rights are being violated.

Quote by: Dirty Name What about non-sexual relationships between family members? Should they be treated the same way? There is no threat of incestuous genetic disorders there? If so, how do you distinguish between sexual and non-sexual relationships? And what about homosexual familial relationships? Ultimately you have to discriminate somewhere, or you have to say "anything goes."

No they wouldn't be. Non seuxal relationships can quickly turn into sexual ones which would ultimately result in physically and/or mentally handicapped children. Since an incestrual relationship without a doubt would result in handicapped children, it still would be outlawed.

[Protostar]

Quote by: Dirty Name So will you allow a brother and sister, mother and son, or father and daughter to enter into such a contract, if they claim they won't engage in sexual relations? Is sexual intercourse a requirement for marriage?

No it isn't a requirement, but since sexual intercouse without a doubt will happen in a marriage, then such relationships should still be outlawed because of the handicapped children they will produce.

[Son of Belial]

From what I read, incestual relationships do NOT without a doubt lead to handicaps. I have no source for this and don't feel like doing a Google search for "incest," but from what I had heard, the risks only become great after several generations of incest.

[shield772]

The basis for everything in our laws is equality, in all areas.

[Son of Belial]

Then let incestuals(sp) get married.

[underbear1]

You can tell what heterosexuals value the MOST, marriage and military, because those are the last things they are willing to share equally with gays/lesbians. Equality will come, (the younger voters who have lived all their lives knowing openly gay people have much less problem supporting gay marriage, so when their bigoted homophobic parents die off), marriage will become legalised for queers.

[Protostar]

Quote by: Son of Belial From what I read, incestual relationships do NOT without a doubt lead to handicaps. I have no source for this and don't feel like doing a Google search for "incest," but from what I had heard, the risks only become great after several generations of incest.

So you are for legalizing it because it will take a long time for the effects to be felt? That makes no sense to me.

[Jack]

I agree. Unfortunately I'm your parent's age, or more. I'll be busy decomposing when that day comes.
You all celebrate for me, will you?

[Son of Belial]

Don't YOU go stereotyping now. I'm a heterosexual, and I certainly wouldn't withhold either of those things. You want to get married, I don't care. I've been there, maybe it sucks a little bit less for gays than it does for straight people. If not, then you're fortunate you're not allowed to get married. I have a feeling the problem with marriage is women, though, do you'll probably be okay.

As far as the military, go get yourself tortured or blown up, another issue I don't care about. I don't value the military the way you say I do. Most people who join the service are bullies that can't do anything else and want to make a living hurting people, or else they're blindly devoted sheep ready to die for some worthless cause because it makes them feel valuable.

I find it funny that you use the word queers, it reminds me of how Black say nigger. I'm wondering when the Chinese will start doing it. "Yo, you my favorite chink! Wassap rice patizzle?" Heh.

[underbear1]

" I have a feeling the problem with marriage is women"
I know some lesbians that would disagree. Isherwood, I'm a year older than you, and definitely won't live to see equality for LGBT's either.

As for my using the term queer, I'm perfectly comfortable with that term, but it did take awhile, (since in my youth that was the derogatory term used most, calling us faggot is much more recent phenomenia.) I'll warn straight folks, not all gays like the term queer,and some will accept various terms amongst ourselves that you AREN'T WELCOMED TO USE!

[Son of Belial]

Yeah well I know some hetero married couples that would disagree too, tough for them.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Dirty Name 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...

Wow, I've really made you angry, haven't I? Is it because I won't submit to your mighty mastery of reasoning? Do you need a Fudgesicle?
If the production of children is irrelevant, I fail to see why the potential to create children would be the end-all, be-all. It seems a giant waste of money to hand out the same benefits to all couples, when not all of them will give the state back the benefits you claim. I also fail to see how a tax break in the first few years of marriage helps to prepare a couple for child-rearing; sure, it helps them save money, but couldn't that money go for a house? Or is home ownership also contingent on breeding? How could the state have a reasonable expectation that the money would go to child-rearing? And before you scream that the VAST majority of couples have children, I want statistics, as I have said twice before.
I do not believe that the government would formulate, and defend, any policy based solely on potential, and not on actual results. If that were the case, college would be free, as it has FAR greater consequence on preventing crime and keeping people off of the welfare and unemployment rolls.
I would like you to respond, calmly and logically, as to my theory that the state gives benefits to married couples in recognition of the traditional married roles of one wage earner, and one homemaker, with or without children.

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.

You are making this up. I thought we established that I am the one who keeps bringing up my own infertile marriage; how did you get the idea that I was proposing children as a stipulation of marriage? I was describing your position, which apparently keeps changing.
Here it is again: my position is that marriages should be legally recognized as a contract between two consenting adults who choose to share their lives, to cohabit and share finances. That's it. The only one who is hung up on breeding is you.
Before you say it, I have also stated that I do not have a problem with sibling/cousin incestuous marriages, as I think the government has no right to judge who should or should not have children; that would be termed eugenics, and it is grossly unconstitutional. I do not think polygamous marriages are between consenting adults, nor are cross-generational incestuous marriages. Please remember also that this argument is about homosexual marriage; if you want to argue about polygamy and incest, start a new thread.

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.

Do capital letters make you smile? I understand the difference. In fact, I think it benefits my argument and not yours. You are stating your belief that the LEGAL benefits of marriage are a recognition of the traditional role of marriage as the place where children are raised. This is your belief. I do not agree. You have no proof. We argue. See how that works?

I think the LEGAL marriage benefits are a recognition by the state that the traditional roles of marriage place married couples in financial difficulty; traditionally, married couples have included one wage-earner, and one homemaker. This means that the couple earns less money than the two individuals would, when both members could be employed. The govenment recognized that fact and gave the married couple a tax break, as some small recompense. They did not do it as some sort of bargain, whereby the couple would then pay the state back by raising a child within a nuclear family, so that that child would not later become a meth-smoking welfare mom. The laws reflect current reality, not future possibility; this is why we do not put people in jail until AFTER they have committed a crime. Nor do we give tax breaks on what might happen in the future.
That is my opinion. If you have facts on why the state created the current LEGAL definition of marriage, please give them. If you do not, then please prove my theory wrong, before demanding that I accept yours.

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).

My honest answer is: Yes. It is not intellectually dishonest: you are saying marriage is about children, and therefore homosexual couples are not equal to heterosexual couples. I do not believe marriage is about children, and so I can honestly say that they are equal. You have to prove to me that marriage is about children before I will agree that the two groups are not equal. You have not done this.
As for the rest of this statement:
1. Most sexual relationships have the potential to produce offspring. True. I still do not believe the percentage is overwhelming, and will not until you give me numbers.
2. It can be statistically proven that more criminals and such, which you term a "burden on the state," came from broken homes. It cannot, however, be proven that there is a cause and effect relationship between the childhood broken home and the adult criminal. Therefore, it is not a valid argument.
3. These staggering statistics you mention, proving that marriage is about children? Where are they? I have a staggering fact for you: sex makes children. Do you then argue that every time a person commits the sex act, their intention is to have children? Do you believe the government's laws against rape, against child molestation, are to prevent the creation of children?
Marriages produce children. But that does not mean that the sole reason for people to get married is to have children. Nor does it mean that the state only wants people to get married so they can have children. Nor does it mean that only married people should have children. These are all assumptions that you have made, and they are all false. Your only argument for them is the first statement: marriages produce children. This is why I do not agree with you: I do not think that the true statement that marriages produce children means anything but that: marriages produce children.
Here is the big problem: None of this means that the LEGAL marriage benefits are intended to help raise children in a nuclear family. That is your interpretation, and it is wrong.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name 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???

I warned that I'd call you on disrespectful behavior.

You should immediately apologize for the comments highlighted in bold above. In the future, you will adjust your debate style to avoid personal attacks if you wish to remain a participant here. Those are the rules at Volcovo.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Dirty Name 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.

Let's take it simply, then. Fertile straight couples have kids, while infertile straight couples do not. It can clearly be seen, then, that infertile straight couples represent no consideration for the state; they are virtually insignificant, by your own reasoning.
Therefore, if your argument is that gay couples should be denied marriage rights by the state as they do not benefit the state, then infertile heterosexual couples should receive the same treatment.
There is NO difference between homosexual couples and infertile heterosexual couples, and yet the marital benefits do not reflect this. This means, sir, that the marital benefits are based on some other consideration than child-bearing, or they are unfair, and should be changed.
It really isn't more complex than this.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: italiangm In the future, you will adjust your debate style to avoid personal attacks if you wish to remain a participant here.

Are you a mod now?

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Protostar So you are for legalizing it because it will take a long time for the effects to be felt? That makes no sense to me.

Have you ever known anyone with fetal alcohol syndrome? I have. The negative effects of drinking alcohol while pregnant are immediate, well-known, and beyond question; yet it is not illegal to drink while pregnant. Frowned on, but not illegal. That makes no sense to me at all, but then, sense is not always the basis for laws -- or at least, the sense is not always apparent.
The chances of incest producing children with birth defects is only fractionally larger than it is for the general populace. We now have the ability to detect when someone carries negative recessive genes; should we not allow two people to marry if they both carry the gene for Downs' Syndrome? You also have to argue that the life of a child with birth defects is not worth living, and that is a personal choice, not something that the government should legislate.
So, yeah, incest should be legal. Do you really think it will happen a lot?

[Dirty Name]

Protostar, you seemed to ignore the question of non-sexual family marriage. For example, would you allow my aunt and my grandmother to enter into a marriage if they so desire? They aren't in a sexual relationship, nor will they ever be. My aunt is just one of those "spinster" ladies and my grandma needs a roommate. They share their lives, they share everything, and have done so for longer than the average marriage. My aunt doesn't date, and won't ever marry a man, and she and grandma certainly are in a loving relationship. Why should they not be granted marriage benefits?

[italiangm]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Are you a mod now?

Do I have to be to point out the obvious?

[Dirty Name]

I warned that I'd call you on disrespectful behavior. You should immediately apologize for the comments highlighted in bold above. In the future, you will adjust your debate style to avoid personal attacks if you wish to remain a participant here. Those are the rules at Volcovo.

You are so biased I can't begin to take you seriously. Every post you make snide and condescending comments. Worse, go back and read the disrespect leveled at me over the last few pages by people on your side of the debate - on two occassions, people told me to go f*** myself or something similar using the f*bomb, and a few other blatantly disrespectful comments.

So far, neither I nor they have complained (as far as I know). That's because I'm not a thin-skinned sissy who takes arguments personally (can't say the same for CoffeeSaint, but I don't think he tattled on me when he got his feathers ruffled).

So, italiangm, why don't you worry about yourself and let others complain if they feel the need to do so? Focus on the debate, and less on choice of words that were never meant for you in the first place.