Homosexual Marriage

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name You are so biased I can't begin to take you seriously.

That's part of your problem.

Quote by: Dirty Name Every post you make snide and condescending comments.

Equal in every respect to those leveled at me by you. You can't claim any moral highroad here.

Quote by: Dirty Name 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.

I'm not surprised. When you're backed into a corner, your holier-than-thou self comes shining through in your responses. Everyone else's views are wrong because we just don't understand you're always right. LOL. :)

Quote by: Dirty Name 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).

That's not the point and you know it.

Quote by: Dirty Name 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.

There's significant benefit to be gained in self-policing behavior in these precincts, especially when the rules are so crystal clear on the matter.

[PatrickHenry]

Anyhow, we should all calm down and debate with intellectual intensity and leave out the rhetoric and bluster that contributes nothing to debate...

[italiangm]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Anyhow, we should all calm down and debate with intellectual intensity and leave out the rhetoric and bluster that contributes nothing to debate...

Agreed. :)

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint 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.

Because, as I've said before, childbirth is a dichotomy to the state. The state NEEDS procreation to survive, but it doesn't want to ENCOURAGE it because it happens by itself. The trick, then, is to encourage it to happen in a way that maximizes positive outcomes and minimizes the burdens to the state. Thus far, the best mechanism we have for doing this is called MARRIAGE. Think of a better idea and you might have a case.

As for my use of capitalization, I'm just too lazy to hit the italics button for emphasis.

[Dirty Name]

There's significant benefit to be gained in self-policing behavior in these precincts, especially when the rules are so crystal clear on the matter.

Police your friends and your opponents equally and you would have my support.

[Dirty Name]

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?

It doesn't matter where it goes. The point is, married couples are economically strengthened through these benefits, period. It's not your business how tax breaks are spent, nor should you be concerned with them. They are no different from other economic incentives that are offered to encourage certain types of behavior.

[Dirty Name]

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.

The government can't afford to make college free, but CERTAINLY the government pays for college if people meet certain requirements... military service, grants, sholarships. But people must meet certain standards, just like marriage. What if a guy signed up for the military, knowing he was a pacifist and would be a concientious objector in the event of a war? The government is still going to pay for the person's college even if they secretly hold the belief that they won't go to war or fire a weapon at the enemy... Not unlike people who get married with no intention of having children. They have the potential to be good soldiers, even if the "soldiers" themselves have no intention of being good.

Now, please don't take this last bit as though I am implying you and your lovely wife are no different from a bunch of yellow-bellied cowards who refuse to uphold their sworn oath to the Constitution. I'm not, OK?

[Ann L.]

In my opinion, an homosexual marriage- i won't say it as normal as a heterosexual marriage- is menatt to be respected because feelings are also involved. Peolpe should restect homosexuals' rigtht to marry whoever they want as soon as it doesn't bother you

[Dirty Name]

In my opinion, an homosexual marriage- i won't say it as normal as a heterosexual marriage- is menatt to be respected because feelings are also involved. Peolpe should restect homosexuals' rigtht to marry whoever they want as soon as it doesn't bother you

Thanks Ann. That's very high-minded of you. Unfortunately, homosexuals can already get married. The more important question is, why should we elevate same-sex marriages to the same level as traditional marriages when there is a significant difference between them?

[Dirty Name]

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.

A wonderful theory. And partially true, I suspect. But with two able-bodied people, as in most same-sex marriages, I see no need for a stay-at-home partner. Such an argument again must allow for any comination of people, regardless of sexual potential, family relationship, etc. Where does the government draw the line? If the answer is "nowhere," then why have benefits at all? What's the point of getting a benefit if everyone has access to the benefit? Eventually, the benefit is consumed because the demand curve goes up while the supply curve remains constant...

Sorry, but it makes sense to discriminate, and the line is perfectly drawn where it is. There is NO GOOD REASON to elevate more couple types (and certainly not all types) to the same level.

[underbear1]

"Sorry, but it makes sense to discriminate, and the line is perfectly drawn where it is"

Perfectly drawn as a special privlidge for heteros! Gays and Lesbians are contributing our taxes for your spouse's Social Security survivor benefits, and about another thousand benefits which are reserved ONLY for straights. So either give us back our taxes, or cough up the SAME BENEFITS.........dearie!

[Athena]

People divorce so much the marriage laws are meaningless anyway, and the state is responsible for all of us, so family doesn't having any meaning either. A modern technoligical family is any combination of people who want to call themselves a family. Why make such a big deal over who can marry and who can't?

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Dirty Name A wonderful theory. And partially true, I suspect. But with two able-bodied people, as in most same-sex marriages, I see no need for a stay-at-home partner. Such an argument again must allow for any comination of people, regardless of sexual potential, family relationship, etc. Where does the government draw the line? If the answer is "nowhere," then why have benefits at all? What's the point of getting a benefit if everyone has access to the benefit? Eventually, the benefit is consumed because the demand curve goes up while the supply curve remains constant... Sorry, but it makes sense to discriminate, and the line is perfectly drawn where it is. There is NO GOOD REASON to elevate more couple types (and certainly not all types) to the same level.

The answer is "nowhere." The state can take back its tax breaks for couples, and increase the tax breaks for dependent children; that's fine. Parents need it more than me. But even if it keeps the "married filing jointly" tax benefit, it would not go to everyone; it would go to married couples. Surely you don't think the number of homosexual marriages wouold break the U.S. government, nor would the incestuous, polygamous, etc., marriages. How many unions could we possibly be talking about? Even if it were enough, the right thing to do would be to remove the unfairly distributed benefit, not to keep it as it is: unfairly distributed.

What this is not, is an argument that supports the denial of legal marriage rights to homosexuals. There is no good reason to deny those rights. Even if I agreed that society gains by having heterosexual couples raise children -- which I don't -- it loses far more by discriminating on the basis of sexual preference.
"Liberty is the only thing you cannot have unless you are willing to give it to others."

Or this:
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Dirty Name Because, as I've said before, childbirth is a dichotomy to the state. The state NEEDS procreation to survive, but it doesn't want to ENCOURAGE it because it happens by itself. The trick, then, is to encourage it to happen in a way that maximizes positive outcomes and minimizes the burdens to the state. Thus far, the best mechanism we have for doing this is called MARRIAGE. Think of a better idea and you might have a case. As for my use of capitalization, I'm just too lazy to hit the italics button for emphasis.

The state doesn't need procreation to survive. The state needspeople; it could get them by immigration, even if the birth rate were 0.
Why doesn't the state want to encourage procreation? Because it doesn't need to encourage it? Doesn't that invalidate your whole argument? Oh, no, I see; we need to encourage it a little. To make it easier, without actually saying, "Go out and do it!"

This is a lovely description of the benefits of marriage to the state. What it is not, is a reason to deny those benefits to homosexual couples. What difference would it make, if homosexual couples were given the benefits without the return value to the state? Infertile couples get the benefits without giving anything back. So either marital benefits need to be denied to couples that are infertile, or they need to be given to homosexual couples -- who can adopt just like infertile couples, by the way.

And as I said bfore, if your aunt and grandmother want to get married, mazel tov. I honestly see no problem with that, or any other marriage that wants to call itself a marriage. My marriage bond is sacred only if I hold it sacred myself, in my heart; what other people do in their marriages does not reflect on mine, and does not affect mine. So why not let anyone who wants to marry, marry?

[Dirty Name]

Perfectly drawn as a special privlidge for heteros! Gays and Lesbians are contributing our taxes for your spouse's Social Security survivor benefits, and about another thousand benefits which are reserved ONLY for straights. So either give us back our taxes, or cough up the SAME BENEFITS.........dearie!

Name the SPECIAL PRIVELEGE that heteros have which gays do not. BE CAREFUL... don't name the OUTCOME they desire, but the actual privelege enumerated in the law.

You can't do it because it doesn't exist.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name Police your friends and your opponents equally and you would have my support.

Seek the moral highground and your shit won't stink. :)

[shield772]

Quote by: Dirty Name Name the SPECIAL PRIVELEGE that heteros have which gays do not. BE CAREFUL... don't name the OUTCOME they desire, but the actual privelege enumerated in the law. You can't do it because it doesn't exist.

Increased tax relief, death and retirement benefits. as for children heres a thought, let homosexuals marry then let them adopt all these unwanted children.

[Dirty Name]

There is no good reason to deny those rights.

You keep slipping up. What rights are you asking for? If you put what you are specifically seeking into the form of a question, you should immediately see that no one has the "right" to marry the person they are sexually attracted to, and no one has the right to marry anyone they want. So equality in the way individuals are treated already exists, no rights are denied, end of story.

What is necessary for your argument to work is for you to admit this much and then argue instead for the redefinition of marriage as an institution. But that, in turn, leads to a whole new set of problems such as where to limit the right to marry and why...

[Dirty Name]

Increased tax relief, death and retirement benefits. as for children heres a thought, let homosexuals marry then let them adopt all these unwanted children.

Homosexuals are NOT denied these rights on the basis of their sexual orientation... in fact, homosexuals have equal access to the institution of marriage, they simply don't want to conform to what is required to gain the benefit.

It's really no different from farm crop subsidies. If the state offers to subsidize soybeans (or traditional marriages), but a farmer (or gay person) chooses not to raise soybeans (or to marry someone of the opposite gender), is he denied the right to claim the subsidy (or the marriage benefit)? Of course not. The farmer chooses to raise corn instead of soybeans, and for that, he doesn't get to claim the benefit, even though he COULD have. Likewise, the gay person could have married someone of the opposite sex and claimed the benefit, but he chose not to. No rights are denied here.

You people are arguing from emotion and now you are also beginning to argue in circles. We've covered this before. You've circled my argument, but you can't get through, now you're going back to this worn-out "equality" argument. Too bad the state doesn't care about sexual orientation - only the gender composition of the couple seeking to marry.

[shield772]

Homosexuality is not a choice, that seems to be the weakness to your arguement.