Homosexual Marriage

[Dirty Name]

Explain why I as a gay American need to fund heterosexual marriages, or their offspring? If you can't........that explains the inequality.

For the same reason you fund public education, the military, highway construction, welfare, farm subsidies, industry bailouts, research, and all manner of goverment programs.

[Osborn F Enready]

Dirty Name said:
For the same reason you fund public education, the military, highway construction, welfare, farm subsidies, industry bailouts, research, and all manner of goverment programs.

I say:
you could have just said socialist influence into an American Capitalist system.

[underbear1]

Quote by: Dirty Name For the same reason you fund public education, the military, highway construction, welfare, farm subsidies, industry bailouts, research, and all manner of goverment programs.

that's no answer. military protects the nation, highways make travel and commerce easier, welfare keeps our poorest from starving and being homeless.......what's the benefit I get from married straight folks?

[Osborn F Enready]

I love it, this thread has gone on for 236 pages, and still the anti-gays are bashing like mad.

Read the poll people. YOU are a minority.

[underbear1]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I love it, this thread has gone on for 236 pages, and still the anti-gays are bashing like mad. Read the poll people. YOU are a minority.

well duh! like I needed a poll to know gays are a minotity. Ya know I heard Jews are too, Sparky.

[Osborn F Enready]

Read it again.

Sorry if you didn't catch my ENUNCIATION.

I meant, the extreme gay bashers who wish to supress their right to marry, are the minority.

[Keith Hamburger]

I realize that this is very old but I just read this ...

[quote=PatrickHenry]Would you say, ... I want to marry my dog, ... "

...

Is there any line you would draw, beyond which marriage is not acceptable?[quote]

Are you saying that the only reason YOU haven't married your dog is that it is illegal? (actually, in many states, sex with animals is not illegal, just because they realize there is no need for such a law)

Or are you saying that there is a large number of others in this country that would marry (or have sex with) their dogs if there weren't laws against it?

As Dave Barry said in Reason Magazine a few years back,

"You want a horrible system, because you think the people should be able to vote for laws they want, and if more than half of them voted for some law, everyone would have to do what they said. Then they could pass a law so that you had to have sex with dogs."

Do you want a system that would force people to have sex with dogs?

All of this stuff is just ridiculous.

What gives the government the power to determine who you fall in love with? Why is it the business of anyone other than yourself and your significant other(s) (and your church if you so choose) who you have a relationship with?


Keith Hamburger

[Son of Belial]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Read the poll people. YOU are a minority.

Of course a poll on one website adequately demonstrates the majority opinion of an entire nation.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Dirty Name 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.

There are rights that are assumed, even though they may not be written into law, specifcally, word for word. It is assumed, for instance, that you are permitted to go to your church every Sunday, but I'd like to see you show me the law that says you can. The Constitution guarantees that nobody can stop you, but it does not say you have the RIGHT to do what you want to do. That is a privilege. Similarly, the law does not state that you can eat the food you buy. That is a privilege.
You know exactly what right I am referring to when I say that heterosexuals have a right whch homosexuals are denied. Your refusal to agree with this is pure sophistry.

Quote by: Dirty Name 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.

If that was true, this conversation would not be happening.

I have noticed that you have two contradictory arguments here: one is that marriage is not denied to homosexuals, and there is no discrimination at all; the other is that homosexuals should not be granted the right to marry the person of their choice because it would corrupt the system. But I don't understand: if there is no discrimination, if there is nothing given to heterosexuals and not given to homosexuals, why would you have to argue that homosexuals don't deserve the same gift? They have it, by your own argument.
So which is it: are homosexuals equal under the law, or is the discriminatory practice justified? I think you are trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

Quote by: Dirty Name 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? True. However, it is a privelege denied to everyone else, too. See above.

Forgive me for not including this pairing into my use of the term "heterosexual;" you are entirely right. It is a privilege that is also denied to opposite sex siblings, also without merit. Are we arguing about incest now? I have stated this before, though, that I have no problem with incestuous marriages within the same generation. From now on, I will argue for homosexual and incestuous marriage rights, together.
But this does no invalidate my point: in non-incestuous heterosexual pairings, there is a recognition of one's free will, of one's choice, of life partner. The state will not judge you for who you marry, except in the cases of polygamy, incest, and homosexuality. But these positions are all discriminatory, and they are all wrong. If you want to argue about the first two, sure; I'm happy to. Otherwise, please stop conflating the situations. I'll grant that they are on a par with homosexual marriage, and I am prepared to include them. Move on.

[QUOTE-Dirty Name]
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.



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.

I think you have enough to work with now.[/quote]

If you are against discriminatory legal practices, as you say, why, in the name of all that's holy, are you against homosexual marriage? Why? I can't understand this. Why are you so strongly against giving a damn tax break to a couple? It's a damn tax break! It's a damn piece of paper! You flabbergast me.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Dirty Name 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.

Can you tell me why we should deny equal impact, or equal outcomes, in this situation?

[Dirty Name]

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?

No. In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court said:

Quote by: Loving v. Virginia unanimous opinion "Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

The Supreme Court cited what they believed to be "invidious racial discriminations," which is a fancy term for prejudicial discrimination on the basis of race - the purpose of the law was to prevent whites from mixing with other races, most notably blacks.

In the case of same-sex marriage, however, the best possible claim one could make is that the state is illegally discriminating on the basis of "gender." However, this too is flawed because there is no systematic, prejudicial discrimination against or in favor of one particular gender. In Loving, the complete opposite was true.

Another important consideration is whether or not an interracial couple is literally equal to a same-race couple. Clearly, there isn't much difference except appearance, and there are no known medical, biological, scientific or social reasons for preventing interracial marriage. The same cannot be said for homosexual marriage - it clearly is lacking in one specific area - the potential for procreation and the ability to provide both a mother and a father to any children they were to acquire.

[Dirty Name]

what's the benefit I get from married straight folks?

It isn't so much about you, the individual, getting a benefit, but rather society as a whole. What benefit do you get from our government paving an extra inch along an interstate you'll never use?

[Dirty Name]

Can you tell me why we should deny equal impact, or equal outcomes, in this situation?

We aren't denying it. We just can't guarantee it. Nor could you, without opening up marriage to every conceivable human combination under the sun.

[Son of Belial]

Quote by: Dirty Name It isn't so much about you, the individual, getting a benefit, but rather society as a whole. What benefit do you get from our government paving an extra inch along an interstate you'll never use?

How does society as a whole benefit from heterosexual marriages but not homosexual marriages?

[Dirty Name]

Of course a poll on one website adequately demonstrates the majority opinion of an entire nation.

Thanks for saving me the trouble.

[underbear1]

Still waiting for the list of benefits I receive from funding married straight folks, which better be substantial benefits, for all your greedy lil' government handouts. Which you didn't earn by walking down an aisle with women in ugly dresses trailing behind you.

[Dirty Name]

I love it, this thread has gone on for 236 pages, and still the anti-gays are bashing like mad

If you are referring to me, and if by "bashing" you mean "gay bashing," I challenge you to point out any evidence of the sort.

[Dirty Name]

Still waiting for the list of benefits I receive from funding married straight folks, which better be substantial benefits, for all your greedy lil' government handouts. Which you didn't earn by walking down an aisle with women in ugly dresses trailing behind you.

Perhaps you missed it... regardless, why don't you first explain why you think marriage is somehow different from, say, the highway bill where a disproportionate amount of your tax dollars goes out of state to fund a highway you'll never use.

[Dirty Name]

How does society as a whole benefit from heterosexual marriages but not homosexual marriages?

Because strong heterosexual marriages are the basis for the nuclear family, which is the most efficient family unit in terms of raising offspring - and since the state recognizes that heterosexual relationships will result in offspring - marriage or not - it makes good sense to strengthen those relationships (even before children are conceived) so that the biological parents stay together to participate in the rearing of that child.

A same-sex relationship, by contrast, is of very little interest to the state whatsoever - it cannot produce offspring (therefore it doesn't help satisfy the state's need to exist in perpetuity), and to the extent that it might acquire offspring outside the relationship, the state already offers benefits in the form of state sponsored medical coverage, adoption tax credits, and child tax credits.

[underbear1]

Since 60 % of heterosexual marriages result in divorce, and 2 incomes are the norm, so there is no stability in child rearing since neither parent is rearing them.........seems I'm not getting much for what I'm paying for. If you want stability, then outlaw divorce for any couple with chldren under the age of 18yo. Make one income sufficient to pay for housing, utilities, transportation, healthcare, groceries, medicine. Otherwise get off the public dole.