Homosexual Marriage

[Dirty Name]

The state doesn't need procreation to survive. The state needspeople; it could get them by immigration, even if the birth rate were 0.

This is a terribly flawed argument. Take Israel for example. Where would they be as a nation if the birth rate of Jewish citizens dropped to zero, and instead they relied on the influx of Palestinian immigrants?

The same could be said here in America. What happens if our birth rate drops to zero, and we are besieged by radical muslim immigrants? Farfetched, I know, but hopefully you see the point. The state needs to a perpetual supply of indigenous citizens to maintain our existing culture. Relying totally on immigration would be the certain end of this nation as we know it.

[Dirty Name]

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

Plenty of people would be happy to argue that, and anyway, marriage IS a choice, just like the farmer who loves corn and chooses not to raise soybeans because of his own personal preferences. For my purposes, it really doesn't matter, because my argument has a fail-safe clause:

Even if we were to agree on the treatment of gay individuals, you still would be forced to argue why they should be treated equally as couples when they clearly don't present the state with the same dichotomy that opposite sex couples do.

I can't make this any clearer. Gay individuals have the exact same rights as everyone else. Opposite sex couples qualify for more benefits because they are a unique entity capable of being either a benefit or a bane to the state. Same sex couples are literally inconsequential to the state - their sexual unions are meaningless, even if it means the world to the people involved.

This is not meant to be a knock - but rather a challenge to all you gay rights advocates to explain to me why the state should care about your union - and a subtle reminder that no matter what items you name, the same things could be said of opposite sex couples, PLUS the fact that their potential for procreation represents a significant interest to the state.

For this reason, the two entities are obviously NOT literally equal, therefore, literally equal treatment is not warranted.

Thanks and have a nice day. I'll entertain any new arguments, but I've now fought off about 10 of you over the last few days, and I just can't keep up. Ultimately it doesn't matter if you buy these arguments or not. I just point them out so you all know better when some of you start screaming about "hate-mongering, homophobic, Christian zealots." Sure, those idiots are out there. But the fact is that there is a perfectly valid, secular, logical arguement against same-sex marriage, whether you subscribe to it or not.

[underbear1]

"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. "

Heterosexuals marry the person of their CHOICE, not just any person of the opposite sex assigned them. Why should gays/lesbians be denied the spouse of their choice simply because they are the same sex? What benefit does society gain by such a law? NOTHING!

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Dirty Name 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.

I am truly staggered that you can compare marriage to farm crop subsidies, and then say that my using my own marriage as an example is irrelevant.
Marriage comes with choice. The legal right to marry who you want to marry is a basic part of the institution. I can't believe I even need to say this; you have detached so far from reality in pursuing your argument, you no longer make any sense. What use is it to have the right to do something you would never do? How does that make us equal? It's equivalent to saying that whites should have rights that blacks don't have, because a black person could always have surgery to turn their skin white, they just choose not to. Or say that women should not have the right to vote, because if they really wanted to, they could have a sex change, become men, and vote. It is absurd.

As for a redefining of the institution of marriage, why? We are not discussing the institution, and never have been. We are discussing the legal status, as you keep saying, and not the institution itself; the legal status of marriage should extend to all citizens, as one of our basic rights. To deny it on the basis of who benefits the state most is not equality, and therefore should not be the law. Basic human rights are inherent, they are not earned, and the right to define one's own familial ties is a basic human right.
The benefits that a homosexual couple should gain? The right to call themselves married on the U.S. census. The same benefits that infertile heterosexual marriages gain. If you think those rights should be changed, fine, but it needs to be changed equally, for everyone.

That's it. The end. Nothing more to debate: it is a basic human right to marry who you wish, and have your marriage be recognized as such by the state.

[underbear1]

btw. If gay marriage was legal, I wouldn't get married, so I have no dog in this race.
a life of serial monotony,,,,,,er,,,,,,,,,,monogamy is something for people who only lived to their early 30s.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Dirty Name I can't make this any clearer. Gay individuals have the exact same rights as everyone else. Opposite sex couples qualify for more benefits because they are a unique entity capable of being either a benefit or a bane to the state. Same sex couples are literally inconsequential to the state - their sexual unions are meaningless, even if it means the world to the people involved. This is not meant to be a knock - but rather a challenge to all you gay rights advocates to explain to me why the state should care about your union - and a subtle reminder that no matter what items you name, the same things could be said of opposite sex couples, PLUS the fact that their potential for procreation represents a significant interest to the state.

Okay. Include "infertile heterosexual couples" in your statement, and I'll leave you alone. Otherwise, you have won nothing, and you are capitulating, as you cannot answer my challenge. You never have answered it, that I have seen. Can you now?

[Dirty Name]

Heterosexuals marry the person of their CHOICE

That may be true in most cases, but it is certainly not a RIGHT by any stretch of the imagination. I am heterosexual. Do I have the right to marry my grandmother? Do I have the right to marry a 12-year-old girl? For that matter, do I have the right to marry someone of the same sex?

Nope. Therefore, neither heterosexuals nor anyone else has the "RIGHT" to marry the the person of their choice." Granted, the system works beautifully if the person of your choice is of the opposite-sex, not a close relative, and a consenting adult. But now we are talking about outcomes from the application of the law, rather than actual rights.

[Dirty Name]

Okay. Include "infertile heterosexual couples" in your statement, and I'll leave you alone.

I've been over this before, and I am growing weary... infertility is not always final, it represents a smaller segment of the population as a whole, and rooting it out would cost more than the state saves. That's my argument for why the state should not worry about it. You don't have to agree, and I don't have to care.

As for your repeated claim that I haven't answered your "challenge," spell it out for me again. My apologies. I hope you realize I am horribly outnumbered here and it's hard to catch everything.

[underbear1]

So how do you feel about the antiquated system of queer men marrying a "beard" (straight woman) having several children, then 10-15 years later dump that family, because they never married someone they felt sexually attracted to?

[Dirty Name]

I am truly staggered that you can compare marriage to farm crop subsidies, and then say that my using my own marriage as an example is irrelevant.

I'm really getting sick of all your feigned surprise, shock and outrage, particularly since you continually take my comments out of context.

My reference to crop subsidies is not a comparison to the institution of marriage. It is simply an illustration of a similar situation where the government subsidizes a particular behavior because it wishes to influence outcomes.

What use is it to have the right to do something you would never do? How does that make us equal? It's equivalent to saying that whites should have rights that blacks don't have, because a black person could always have surgery to turn their skin white, they just choose not to. Or say that women should not have the right to vote, because if they really wanted to, they could have a sex change, become men, and vote. It is absurd.

What use is it to have the right to do something you would never do?

Ha! Don't ask me! Why should the state care what your ultimate choice is going to be? What about the farmer who would NEVER raise soybeans because his family has always raised corn? Is he somehow cheated out of his rights? Of course not! You are letting the emotional component of marriage influence your thinking on this matter.

But your argument is moot because the examples you give are illegal. Giving whites special rights over blacks is called racial discrimination. Giving males special rights over females is called gender discrimination. Both are forms of discrimination that are banned in federal law.

So there IS a difference.

[Dirty Name]

So how do you feel about the antiquated system of queer men marrying a "beard" (straight woman) having several children, then 10-15 years later dump that family, because they never married someone they felt sexually attracted to?

I feel it's morally repugnant. Next question.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name Your argument is moot because the examples you give are illegal. Giving whites special rights over blacks is called racial discrimination. Giving males special rights over females is called gender discrimination. Both are forms of discrimination that are banned in federal law.

They are now. At one time, they weren't.

The question of legality under the law is the issue that faces any law that selectively prevents same sex marriage, and, selectively provides for opposite sex benefits.

I, and many others, believe the laws are illegal based on their current restrictions/requirements and will be overturned.

[Dirty Name]

They are now. At one time, they weren't.

Trouble is, you'll have to create a whole new class, because "sexual orientation" isn't going to get you there in the way that the inclusion of "race" and "gender" in civil rights legislation helped those other groups. So I'm curious, what would this new class be called?

I, and many others, believe the laws are illegal based on their current restrictions/requirements and will be overturned.

I don't know what gives you this false hope, especially since the states have amended their constitution with language crafted by lawyers and ratified by an overwhelming majority of voters who feel the exact opposite is true, and which is further backed up by an increasingly conservative Supreme Court.

The grim reality is that things just aren't going your way.

[underbear1]

""sexual orientation" isn't going to get you there "

It will get us there, but neither of us will live to see it, kinda like evolution, the progress is unstopable, but deadly slow.

[Dirty Name]

""sexual orientation" isn't going to get you there " It will get us there, but neither of us will live to see it

I don't see how, since it can be logically proven that "sexual orientation" is not a factor in determining marriage benefits:

Homosexual Marriage

[shield772]

The court is becoming something more important than conservative, it is becoming a court that will apply the constitution as it is written not as interpreted. so same sex marriage will become recognized as it is an equal protection matter.

[Dirty Name]

as it is an equal protection matter.

You can hope so.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name Trouble is, you'll have to create a whole new class, because "sexual orientation" isn't going to get you there in the way that the inclusion of "race" and "gender" in civil rights legislation helped those other groups. So I'm curious, what would this new class be called?

You've stated the government doesn't care about sexual orientation.

If that's true, then the problem is one of equality. Any adult who reaches the age of consent can enter a marriage contract regardless of the contracting parties gender. As long as states want to be in the contract-recognition business, that contract should be recognized by the state including any benefits.

[shield772]

I at this time don't wanna marry anyone of either sex been there done that have the t-shirts 3 of them

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Dirty Name I've been over this before, and I am growing weary... infertility is not always final, it represents a smaller segment of the population as a whole, and rooting it out would cost more than the state saves. That's my argument for why the state should not worry about it. You don't have to agree, and I don't have to care. As for your repeated claim that I haven't answered your "challenge," spell it out for me again. My apologies. I hope you realize I am horribly outnumbered here and it's hard to catch everything.

No, that was my challenge; this is your answer. It's idiocy. Your best answer is that infertility is "not always final," which is ridiculous. So in your eyes, the state is best served by giving a tax break to a couple in the hopes that, somewhere down the road, there may be a potential scientific discovery that will reverse their infertility? And to help that couple reach that happy day, the government legislated the married filing jointly tax break -- when, twenty years ago? Fifty? When infertility was irreversible? That makes sense to you?
It represents a smaller proportion of the population? Seriously? First, you have still not given me any stats, so I'm just going to toss this argument out as a figment of your imagination. But even if you're right, the government does not get to ignore minorities if they don't fit nicely into the state's categories; the laws have to represent all people. Even if there was only one infertile couple, the government's laws would have to represent them.
As for the government's expense in checking a couple's fertility, if it would save the government the tax breaks it has to pay out to married couples, it would save thousands and thousands of dollars if the government would just test for fertility. How many years will I be gaining a tax break? Forty? Fifty? If the tax break is $1,000, would the testing cost more than $50,000? No, and you know it; you just can't face the fact that infertile heterosexual couples destroy your entire argument. We cannot produce children; therefore, we are inconsequential to the state -- and yet the state gives us the same benefits as breeders, and has NEVER suggested removing those benefits. I think it is clear, to everyone but you, that the marriage benefits are NOT based on procreation. But then, as you say, you don't care; way to disprove my argument!

Schoolhouse Rock taught me that the laws of our country go through a certain process before they can become laws. I do not believe that this fantasy you have created, which does not reflect the realities of the percentage of infertile marriages in the U.S., was the motivation behind the legal recognition of marriage in this country. I do not believe it is a reason to justify the denial of those marriage rights to homosexual couples. I do not believe I will waste any more time arguing with you.