Homosexual Marriage

[Dirty Name]

so we can't pass laws that come from religious doctrine.

We most certainly can, as long as they have a secular application.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Dirty Name Chant that a few more times and you will have almost convinced yourself.

Oh no, I've already convinced myself that I'm right and you aren't; the question is, how many times do I have to chant it before you get it? Obviously, a few more.

Quote by: Dirty Name If you think governmental policy has no "motive" behind it, but is really just a reaction to "demands" by the people, you are taking a rather simplistic view of the situation. The people do in fact make demands of the leaders they elect. But the public policies demanded by the people still make sense - they do have sound reasons for such demands, and they aren't quite as cynical as you would like to make them out to be. In the case of marriage - as it is debated today - the soundness behind the concept of a nuclear family is unassailable, and does in fact form the basis behind the motivation of the state. Read court documents and arguments by attorneys, editorials from writers all over the country and it's pretty obvious - regardless of the original reasons for legal marriage - what matters is our reasons for KEEPING our laws now.

Good point. There is a justification for keeping the laws now. But you have been arguing that there is an historical basis for the laws being set up as they are now, and that is untrue. Pardon me; it may be true, and in fact, I'm sure there was some reasoning behind the creation of a married tax break. However: you don't know what it is, and you argue as though you do. You are making this up. Perhaps I would see what you see if I read the documents and arguments you refer to; have you read them? If so, can you reference them, please? If not: you are making this up.
In fact, the idea that you understand the government's current reason for keeping the laws as they are now is also untrue. You are making that up.

Quote by: Dirty Name Capitalizing your last declaration doesn't really count as a sound argument. Nowhere in this last diatribe did I read anything even remotely classified as a sound rebuttal.

I didn't rebut you because there's nothing to rebut, and that's what I kept repeating. Your entire argument is invented out of whole cloth; it is a figment of your imagination; it is a pile of horse pucky. Why should I rebut you? I'm not hoping to convince you; you will not believe anything you didn't think up. I want everyone who reads this thread to realize that you are full of crap, and that your arguments hold no water.

Just so we can be clear, let's lay out the positions, shall we? Here is mine.

1.Homosexual individuals cannot be discriminated against in this country, as they cannot be denied any rights guaranteed to any other person under the 14th Amendment.
2. Homosexual individuals cannot be denied any privileges that are afforded to other citizens, unless there is a valid reason to deny them. For instance: convicted felons lose their right to bear arms; they also are denied the privilege of voting. Minors, too, are denied their full rights, because of their age. These are rational arguments, as the lost rights or privileges require a certain trust be put into the recipient, for lack of a better word; and felons have lost that trust, while children have not yet earned it.
3. Marriage to the individual person of your choice is a privilege afforded to heterosexual citizens over the age of eighteen; again, the denial of underage privileges is reasonable.
4. Marriage to the individual of your choice is a privilege denied to homosexual citizens.
5. Marriage, as I am defining it, is the right to a marriage certificate validated by the state; the right to jointly own property, and to inherit it upon death of one partner even if intestate; the right to refuse to testify against one's spouse in court; and finally, the right to make medical decisions for your spouse, over the possible objections of spouse's other relations. (It is my understanding that a married couple has all of these rights; I am ready to be corrected, if I am wrong on this).
6. Any other privileges associated with a legal, state-recognized marriage, should also be afforded to homosexual couples, but any others, I am willing to forget about, including the married filing jointly tax break and the social security death benefits, provided they are also denied to heterosexual couples.

There you go. Any debate?

[Dirty Name]

If I understand Dirty Name's argument correctly, he asserts there may be something defective in "italiangm", so the body generates a termination sequence that expresses itself as "homosexual" to deter the replication of defective genes from just the individual "italiangm" line. Essentially, the general argument is that homosexuals don't reproduce anywhere close to the same frequency as heterosexuals, so the chance of continuing that line are slim. A similar comparison might be made with males that express downs syndrome. They cannot reproduce, yet we continue to see them. However, that individual "line" ends with their birth. One could say the defects are more obvious in downs syndrome folks than in homosexuals, but the basis for termination is still the same.

An accurate defense of what I posted, but please don't mistake this as "my argument" though. I just toss it out for discussion, I don't necessarily believe it, for it must first require genetic recognition of homosexuality to begin with, and we have yet to prove that is the case.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Dirty Name How many times must I point out the INDISPUTABLE FACT that no one has the "right to marry whomever they wish"? It's TOTALLY FALSE.

What restrictions are placed on this, for heterosexual individuals?
Are they the same restrictions placed on it for homosexual individuals?
If not, your point is moot. The laws should not change for individuals based on their sexual preference.

[Dirty Name]

Pardon me; it may be true, and in fact, I'm sure there was some reasoning behind the creation of a married tax break. However: you don't know what it is, and you argue as though you do. You are making this up.

You are full of crap. What precisely are you accusing me of making up? I essentially posted the same thing that italiangm posted with regard to the history of the "Married Filing Jointly" tax status.

[Dirty Name]

What restrictions are placed on this, for heterosexual individuals?

First of all, the restrictions apply EQUALLY to ALL individuals. And for many states:

Individuals seeking legal recognition of their marriage must:

1) Be 18 years of age (or have some parental consent, I think)
2) Not be closely related
3) Of the opposite sex

With the possible exception of Massachussetts, no state recognizes the "right" to marry anyone they wish, or more specifically, "the person they are sexually attracted to."

I go back to my analogy regarding farm subsidies. You may have grown up on a corn farm your entire life. You may be a world renowned expert at growing corn and corn might be the only thing your soil is suited for. But if the federal government decides to offer a subsidy for all soybean farmers, and you don't want to grow soybeans, it doesn't mean you are being discriminated against, and it CERTAINLY doesn't mean that soybean farmers are allowed to grow the crop they are experts at.

There really isn't ANY difference here between my analogy and the same-sex marriage debate, EXCEPT people tend to get a lot more emotional about love, sex and marriage than they do about soybeans and corn.

[Dirty Name]

In fact, the idea that you understand the government's current reason for keeping the laws as they are now is also untrue. You are making that up.

Nope. I live in Ohio, and I guarantee you that the "government" reason for the marriage amendment is because most people behind the passage of it believe as I do - that the nuclear family is key to the survival of this great nation - and I can probably even ask the nationally-known leader of the group that led the charge in Ohio to personally explain it to you if you like. I happen to work with him on occasion.

[Dirty Name]

I want everyone who reads this thread to realize that you are full of crap, and that your arguments hold no water.

And I want everyone who reads this thread to realize that your argument can be boiled down to "you are full of crap, but I won't rebut your arguments."

Like you, my goal is not to convert you or anyone else on your side. My goal is only to educate and correct people who come in here and try to make the following ridiculous claims:

1) Marriage laws illegally discriminate against gays.
2) Gays aren't allowed to "get married."
3) Gay individuals are treated unfairly because they aren't allowed to marry whomever they wish.
4) Homophobia and/or religious intolerance is the sole basis for the fight against same-sex marriage.

Whether or not I convince people that gay marriage is a bad idea is only secondary to my first goal of educating them on the finer points of this discussion.

At the very least, people like italiangm and others have a basic understanding that there is more to the argument than merely declaring that "God says homosexuality is a sin, therefore we can't allow same sex marriage."

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Dirty Name First of all, the restrictions apply EQUALLY to ALL individuals. And for many states: Individuals seeking legal recognition of their marriage must: 1) Be 18 years of age (or have some parental consent, I think) 2) Not be closely related 3) Of the opposite sex With the possible exception of Massachussetts, no state recognizes the "right" to marry anyone they wish, or more specifically, "the person they are sexually attracted to."

Do you see how these three restrictions do not have equal impact on heterosexual individuals and on homosexual individuals? For the heterosexual, this does not preclude the one he loves; for the homosexual, it does preclude the one he loves. It does not guarantee that either group will marry the one they love, but it does prevent one group from marrying the one they love. You are preventing a group of Americans from pursuing their happiness, and you have no rational reason for doing so. This is illegal, under the fourteenth Amendment.

If I added a fourth,
4) Must be of same race
Wouldn't that be just as valid, in your view? Are you proposing we allow miscegenation? If you have your way, we're heading down a slippery slope. The next thing you know, they won't allow young people to marry older people, or pretty people to marry ugly people. And then what have you got?

Quote by: Dirty Name I go back to my analogy regarding farm subsidies. You may have grown up on a corn farm your entire life. You may be a world renowned expert at growing corn and corn might be the only thing your soil is suited for. But if the federal government decides to offer a subsidy for all soybean farmers, and you don't want to grow soybeans, it doesn't mean you are being discriminated against, and it CERTAINLY doesn't mean that soybean farmers are allowed to grow the crop they are experts at. There really isn't ANY difference here between my analogy and the same-sex marriage debate, EXCEPT people tend to get a lot more emotional about love, sex and marriage than they do about soybeans and corn.

But as a corn farmer, you could ask for a corn subsidy for your farm, and if the situation with corn were similar to the situation with soybean (similar supply and demand, similar market price, etc.), the government would not be justified in denying your corn subsidy. Would they? They might do it, sure, but it would be wrong. It would not be fair, and it would be discriminatory against corn farmers. So if you want to just say, "Tough shit, there's no gay marriage," sure, that's fine. Just stop arguing that gay marriage SHOULD be banned; that position is unjustified, unfair, and discriminatory; really, you are doing yourself a disservice.

And by the way, you said this:

Quote by: Dirty Name You are full of crap. What precisely are you accusing me of making up? I essentially posted the same thing that italiangm posted with regard to the history of the "Married Filing Jointly" tax status.

So I went back and checked.

Quote by: italiangm For the record, the Revenue Act of 1916 taxed the “entire net income received by every individual.” Some states had community property laws allowing some married couples to lower their taxes by “splitting” assets which decreased joint tax liability. So Congress was pressured to establish joint taxation allowing for “income splitting” and creating one of our nation’s first tax shelters. Single folk got upset and pressured Congress to lessen the benefits of income splitting in 1969. It's interesting to note that 13 countries changed from joint or family taxation to individual taxation since 1970. None have changed in the opposite direction.

And you said this:

Quote by: Dirty Name Your convenient mischaracterization of my statement doesn't surprise me either. So let me refocus your misplaced energy on the correct interpretation: You cannot deny that throughout American history, upon getting married, men and women traditionally had children ( in many some cases, lots of them). In our agrarian economy, children were almost like a crop of their own! The benefits that are primarily in dispute in this discussion - tax breaks and social security survivor benefits, were both inventions of the 20th century. The married-filing-jointly tax break was made law so that married couples did not incur a penalty when one spouse remained at home. In a same-sex union, there is no chance that a child could be conceived within that relationship - and therefore no expectation of a stay-at-home spouse. Could they acquire a child? Certainly. But doing so is a decision that is made consciously - and this is not always the case in a traditional marriage. We are talking about LEGAL RECOGNITION OF MARRIAGE, not the institution itself. Your post attempts to take me task about the history of marriage, a subject I'm not really talking about. My general thrust was in relation to the general recognition of marital unions by the state.

These are not the same. He said the law was put in place to recognize the laws of some states about marriage. You said it was put in place specifically to encourage one stay-at-home spouse, i.e., a parent.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Dirty Name Nope. I live in Ohio, and I guarantee you that the "government" reason for the marriage amendment is because most people behind the passage of it believe as I do - that the nuclear family is key to the survival of this great nation - and I can probably even ask the nationally-known leader of the group that led the charge in Ohio to personally explain it to you if you like. I happen to work with him on occasion.

This is the perception of the people. it is not the opinion of the government, or the lawmakers. If you are stating that the laws were put in place at the behest of the majority of the people, well, that was my point. So thank you.

[Dirty Name]

1.Homosexual individuals cannot be discriminated against in this country, as they cannot be denied any rights guaranteed to any other person under the 14th Amendment.

Agreed. Now show me what right they are denied - preferably in writing. I'm guessing you can't find any such "right" to marry the person we are sexually attracted to.

2. Homosexual individuals cannot be denied any privileges that are afforded to other citizens, unless there is a valid reason to deny them. For instance: convicted felons lose their right to bear arms; they also are denied the privilege of voting. Minors, too, are denied their full rights, because of their age. These are rational arguments, as the lost rights or privileges require a certain trust be put into the recipient, for lack of a better word; and felons have lost that trust, while children have not yet earned it.

Again, I agree. Trouble is, the state doesn't ask about sexual preference when granting a marriage license. Therefore, homosexuality is NOT the basis they are denied any priveleges. Further, they aren't denied anything that is granted to any other type of sexual orientation.

3. Marriage to the individual person of your choice is a privilege afforded to heterosexual citizens over the age of eighteen; again, the denial of underage privileges is reasonable.

I strongly disagree. "Marriage to the individual person of your choice" is not a privelege that exists in the majority of states. This is where you seem to stray off course. Maybe it would help if you stepped back from the homosexuality argument for a moment and tried the exact same argument using a different sort of group - say, a sterilized pair of opposite sex siblings. Do they have the privelege of marrying the individual person of their choice?

Marriage to the individual of your choice is a privilege denied to homosexual citizens.

True. However, it is a privelege denied to everyone else, too. See above.

Marriage, as I am defining it, is the right to a marriage certificate validated by the state; the right to jointly own property, and to inherit it upon death of one partner even if intestate; the right to refuse to testify against one's spouse in court; and finally, the right to make medical decisions for your spouse, over the possible objections of spouse's other relations. (It is my understanding that a married couple has all of these rights; I am ready to be corrected, if I am wrong on this).

Agreed. However there are additional legal benefits you did not mention, such as social security survivor benefits, as well as a number of other family-law related items, and even I am leaving out some of the legal benefits.

Any other privileges associated with a legal, state-recognized marriage, should also be afforded to homosexual couples, but any others, I am willing to forget about, including the married filing jointly tax break and the social security death benefits, provided they are also denied to heterosexual couples.

I have and will again argue that most priveleges associated with marriage are attainable via a legal contract, wills, living wills, and limited powers of attorney. I will accept italiangm's argument at face value that many institutions refuse to recognize these instruments, or at least make life difficult for same-sex partners. If true, I submit that those institutions are indeed engaging in illegal discrimination and those legal instruments should be recognized.

What I am opposed to is the legal recognition of ANY other type of union other than that of a heterosexual union between a man and a woman. I am specifically opposed to granting "married, filing jointly" tax status and social security survivor benefits to non-traditional (i.e. non-opposite sex) couples.

There you go. Any debate?

I think you have enough to work with now.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Dirty Name And I want everyone who reads this thread to realize that your argument can be boiled down to "you are full of crap, but I won't rebut your arguments." Like you, my goal is not to convert you or anyone else on your side. My goal is only to educate and correct people who come in here and try to make the following ridiculous claims: 1) Marriage laws illegally discriminate against gays. 2) Gays aren't allowed to "get married." 3) Gay individuals are treated unfairly because they aren't allowed to marry whomever they wish. 4) Homophobia and/or religious intolerance is the sole basis for the fight against same-sex marriage. Whether or not I convince people that gay marriage is a bad idea is only secondary to my first goal of educating them on the finer points of this discussion. At the very least, people like italiangm and others have a basic understanding that there is more to the argument than merely declaring that "God says homosexuality is a sin, therefore we can't allow same sex marriage."

Is there any point to you and I continuing this discussion, then?

[Dirty Name]

Do you see how these three restrictions do not have equal impact on heterosexual individuals and on homosexual individuals?

YES, I do. But the flaw with your argument is that nobody is guaranteed "equal impact." Only equal treatment.

Consider the farm subsidy analogy again. Even if "crop-prefence" discrimination was made illegal, are they discriminated against on the basis of crop-preference? Of course not. They are discriminated against based on crop output. But since "crop output" is not an illegal reason to discriminate against, they have no claim.

Clearly those who love and produce soybeans are impacted positively by the subsidy, while those who love and produce corn are impacted negatively. But our laws do not guarantee equal impact (or better stated, equal outcomes). They only guarantee equal application and access to everyone.

[underbear1]

It'd be simpler to prove marriage is a religious intrusion into a government's legal system, and should just be banned altogether,( for straights and gays)........it serves no benefit to society, it's just a piece of paper.

[Dirty Name]

It'd be simpler to prove marriage is a religious intrusion into a government's legal system, and should just be banned altogether,( for straights and gays)........it serves no benefit to society, it's just a piece of paper.

I'll add you to my list of folks whom I feel responsible for causing the abandonment of their ridiculous argument that same-sex marriage should be legalized, in favor of the "ban marriage altogether" argument.

[underbear1]

hey if straights lose marriage, I gain equality..........works for me.

[Dirty Name]

hey if straights lose marriage, I gain equality..........works for me.

You already have it and you can't prove otherwise.

[underbear1]

Gays and lesbians have figured out how to sustain or not sustain our relationships with no government sanctions,(and with the exceptions of a few same-sex marriages of the Early Christian Church, no religious endorsement either.) It's time heterosexuals figure out how to sustain or not sustain there relationships without my tax dollars funding their religious beliefs.

[underbear1]

Explain why I as a gay American need to fund heterosexual marriages, or their offspring?

If you can't........that explains the inequality.

[Dirty Name]

It's time heterosexuals figure out how to sustain or not sustain there relationships without my tax dollars funding their religious beliefs.

What wonderful hyperbole. I would submit, however, that heterosexuals can and do sustain their relationships without the government - but government subsidies make it considerably easier.