Homosexual Marriage

[Morgan_Freeman]

It doesn't surprise me that when Dirty Name is (finally) presented with a real argument, he goes mute for a while, and then only comes back on when someone new shows up and adds the same irrelevant, repetitive crap that fills these almost 300 pages.

Like CoffeeSaint, I posted exactly the sort of logical, coherent assault on his position he demands some hundred pages back. He craftily ignored it and then went back to cherry picking.

He has yet to meaningfully respond to the following points:

1. There are, in fact, no statistics whatsoever that support his claim that marriage specifically, or opposite-sex partnerships generally, promote a superior child-rearing environment. Dirty Name has yet to provide a single set of these statistics he speaks of.

2. Government subsidies promoting child-rearing, or any other activity deemed by elitists to be "beneficial" to society, are at best useless, and at worst, horribly counterproductive.

3. Legal discrimination on the basis of gender is not any more morally justifiable than race-based discrimination. One can just as easily argue that a marriage between two caucasians is better for children than a marriage between a caucasian and an african-american.


I would also like to take a moment to express my disdain for the incredible amount of substanceless ad hominem attacks that have been directed at Dirty Name. If you can't respond to the man's arguments, stay off the board.
I also wonder why I haven't been accused of being a "dirty, greedy, exploiting capitalist", but I guess people on this board get more worked up about cultural issues than economic ones.

[Sasha]

Generaly I support the notion that the gov should leave marriage alone, its between you, your spouse and your community, the state cant give it any more value. That said lets have some fun.

1. There can't be any reliable statistics about how effective same sex marriages are as parents as they havent been allowed to do so at any statistically signifigant level. This however doesnt mean it is a good thing, only that we don't know. Moreover I think it would be pretty unfair to subject a bunch of infants to somebody's liberal minded social experiment in the name of equality. The adults can choose to live whatever life they want. Children don't have that luxury.

2. not wanting to go back 300 pages, could you elaborate on this. It seems to me that raising children incures costs that a couple without children dont have. moreover having children is nessicary for society to function. Therefor if the gov't can do something to help these people, like tax breaks it should. Does this mean the vast majority of parents would change there minds if these policies were changed, no, but the margin would. moreover, even if it doesnt change there minds. making there life a little easier is a nice thing to do and believe it or not does make there lives easier

3. Tell this to the army who wont allow women in the combat arms. Firedepartments who have different physical fitness standards (this is changing as they make the test more job relavant) the whole notion of having seperate washrooms and atheletes competing according to their sex in the olympic games. I'm not taking an opinon on any of these matters at the moment, only pointing out that some level of sexual discrimination is tolerated and indeed encouraged in our society

[Dirty Name]

http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.../1078/GATORS02

I'm not deliberately ignoring anyone, Freeman. So don't get your panties in a wad. I'll be back, around mid-May, but for now am engaged in a project that is sapping my time like never before.

In the meantime, I think the above article pretty much illustrates one of my key arguments - that once we legalize same-sex marriage, then the entire system is compromised to the point where it's absurd to offer benefits to anyone.

In this case, a school legalized same-sex partner benefits, only to find that roommates were applying for the benefits when they weren't even engaged in a relationship - to the point where it became rampant. So the school now absurdly requires that partner benefits are only granted to those who file an affadavit of sexual activity.

So once again, I ask - why is sexual activity a requirement for gay people to collect benefits? Gay sexual unions are meaningless when it comes to the school - in other words, the school is not affected in the least by homosexual intercourse.

Surely you people see the absurdity in all of this, right?

Regardless of your emotion-laden responses, I'll be back soon enough. Hopefully by then you'll have a real argument.

[Morgan_Freeman]

And as I've said many times, I WANT to compromise the system.

[Dirty Name]

And as I've said many times, I WANT to compromise the system.

Which is NOT an argument in favor of same-sex marriage. It is an argument in favor of abolishing legal marriage, a completely different discussion.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Dirty Name Which is NOT an argument in favor of same-sex marriage. It is an argument in favor of abolishing legal marriage, a completely different discussion.

No, it's not a completely different discussion. The only reason I support same-sex marriage is that it stands a much greater chance of being enacted than an eradication of marriage entirely. Your beloved institution of marriage is one that systematically denies people their rights.

[Dirty Name]

Your beloved institution of marriage is one that systematically denies people their rights.

What specific right(s) is/are denied? Nobody - I repeat - nobody has an inherent right to tax breaks, insurance benefits, etc.

In virtually every case, people must meet some sort of minimum qualification in order to receive such benefits.

So, Dr. Freeman, what right or rights are you referring to? Again, you are treading down a path that you cannot defend logically.

[Dirty Name]

The only reason I support same-sex marriage is that it stands a much greater chance of being enacted than an eradication of marriage entirely.

Which, again, is nothing more than an argument for the abolishment of marriage, as we see in the article link I posted above. Once same-sex marriage laws are enacted, they will ultimately lead to the eradication of legal marriage benefits.

In the UF case, as well as the recent incest case in Europe, the nonsense has already begun - once we legalize same-sex partnerships, the anything-goes mentality begins to take hold.

U of F has at least realized their first mistake - recognizing same-sex partnerships in the first place. But now they've compounded it by adding a requirement for sexual intercourse - which they cannot enforce, nor can they defend the logic of it, since sexual intercourse in a gay relationship has no bearing on the school in any way. It's merely a form of...

*Gasp*

Discrimination.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Sasha Moreover I think it would be pretty unfair to subject a bunch of infants to somebody's liberal minded social experiment in the name of equality. The adults can choose to live whatever life they want. Children don't have that luxury.

And somehow it's not unfair to subject children to your conservative-minded social status quo? Your argument falls flat on its face. Vague fears of social downfall are NOT a valid reason for denying people their rights. Show us something concrete.

The facts are rather to the contrary. In many states, there are gay couples who want to adopt children, but aren't allowed to. Instead, the children have to remain in orphanages or with shitty hetero foster families. How is that caring for the children?
Here's one such story:
http://www.lethimstay.com/

Quote by: Sasha moreover having children is nessicary for society to function.

What a bizarre proposition. I have no idea what point you're trying to make here. Having children certainly seems necessary for society to continue, but not for it to function. What, are you afraid that if birth rates drop, society will fall apart? Or do you mean you just want more taxable citizens to fuel the welfare state?

Quote by: Sasha making there life a little easier is a nice thing to do and believe it or not does make there lives easier

There are an infinity of different, definable groups of people whos lifes the government could "make easier". Noone here has yet made a case for why the government should do this, either in general, or specifically in the case of marriage.

I submit to you that whenever the government dangles carrots in front of people, it is a case of bureacratic overreach. These are artificial, unnecessary incentives that distort markets and create inefficiency. Marriage is no different.

Quote by: Sasha 3. Tell this to the army who wont allow women in the combat arms. Fire departments who have different physical fitness standards (this is changing as they make the test more job relavant)

We aren't discussing the military or fire departments, we're discussing the relation of individual citizens to the state. What possible relevance can these examples have?

Quote by: Sasha the whole notion of having seperate washrooms

I'm not aware of any law requiring seperate washrooms for men and women, but if there is one, I recommend its immediate repeal.

Quote by: Sasha and atheletes competing according to their sex in the olympic games.

Strictly a matter to be brought up with the planners of the Olympics. This is irrelevant.

Quote by: Sasha I'm not taking an opinon on any of these matters at the moment, only pointing out that some level of sexual discrimination is tolerated and indeed encouraged in our society

We aren't discussing sexual discrimination that takes place in society. We're discussing sexual discrimination on the part of the government.

[Dirty Name]

Vague fears of social downfall are NOT a valid reason for denying people their rights.

Please establish once and for all what "rights" you claim people are denied. You can't do it logically because everyone has the exact same rights.

Therefore, it's your argument that continually falls flat on it's face.

[Dirty Name]

What a bizarre proposition. I have no idea what point you're trying to make here. Having children certainly seems necessary for society to continue, but not for it to function. What, are you afraid that if birth rates drop, society will fall apart? Or do you mean you just want more taxable citizens to fuel the welfare state?

Now you're just being bullheaded. Sasha accurately states that without children, society will ultimately cease to function. And you know it. Quit being such a hard-head.

[Dirty Name]

I submit to you that whenever the government dangles carrots in front of people, it is a case of bureacratic overreach. These are artificial, unnecessary incentives that distort markets and create inefficiency. Marriage is no different.

Therefore, your logical argument is that marriage benefits be totally abolished (as I said earlier), not that that same sex marriage is a good idea.

Admit it - you see gay marriage as the means to an end.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Dirty Name What specific right(s) is/are denied? Nobody - I repeat - nobody has an inherent right to tax breaks, insurance benefits, etc.

This is something I posted long ago that you pointedly ignored.

These are the rights:

-joint parenting;
-joint adoption;
-joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
-status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
-dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
-immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
-inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
-joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
-inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
-joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
-wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
-decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
-crime victims' recovery benefits;
-loss of consortium tort benefits;
-domestic violence protection orders;
-judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
-and more....

These are all rights that we as sovereign individuals should have without the government granting them to us. It's called "the right to contract". Going through the legal process of marriage is the only way to unlock these rights. Like I said, I would like to do away with marriage entirely, but in the meantime, same sex marriage is a way to make it easier for people to get their rights back, by eliminating one condition of marriage -- that the participants be of opposite gender.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Dirty Name Now you're just being bullheaded. Sasha accurately states that without children, society will ultimately cease to function. And you know it. Quit being such a hard-head.

I see. So you are claiming that without marriage, childbirth will end, and the human race will become extinct?

[Dirty Name]

We aren't discussing sexual discrimination that takes place in society. We're discussing sexual discrimination on the part of the government.

I submit to both Sasha and Freeman that "sexual discrimination" is not taking place in the denial of same-sex marriage benefits. Rather, the discrimination is based on gender composition of the couple, and the purpose is not to exclude gays, but rather to limit the benefit to those it was intended to help in the first place: people who are most likely to produce offspring.

It's not perfect, but as the U of F link shows, it's WAY better than the alternative, it's logically defensible, and there is no argument to support equal treatment of same-sex couples since they are not literally equal to opposite sex couples anyway.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Dirty Name Therefore, your logical argument is that marriage benefits be totally abolished (as I said earlier), not that that same sex marriage is a good idea.

In and of itself, gay marriage is just as nonsensical as I see straight marriage to be. It is not, inherently, a "good idea".

Quote by: Dirty Name Admit it - you see gay marriage as the means to an end.

Of course.

[Dirty Name]

I see. So you are claiming that without marriage, childbirth will end, and the human race will become extinct?

No, Freeman. I'm claiming that society has a vested interest in procreation - but not in all it's forms. Statistically, procreation within a marriage is the least burdensome for society. Therefore, marriage among potentially procreative couples should be elevated above other types of unions that are not equal to it in terms of benefits to society at large.

But you already know this.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Dirty Name I submit to both Sasha and Freeman that "sexual discrimination" is not taking place in the denial of same-sex marriage benefits. Rather, the discrimination is based on gender composition of the couple,

A marriage isn't granted to a "couple". It's granted to two individual citizens. As the law currently stands, the government must first discern the gender of those two citizens, and take one of two courses of action based on that finding. This is gender discrimination, plain and simple.

[Dirty Name]

In and of itself, gay marriage is just as nonsensical as I see straight marriage to be. It is not, inherently, a "good idea".

And you are incorrect, for the simple fact that gay marriages do not produce offspring, while straight marriages do. You're quote above is completely ignorant of this important fact - and all you can now do is argue about adoption and other secondary forms of parenthood - all which are proven to be more burdensome on society.

[Dirty Name]

As the law currently stands, the government must first discern the gender of those two citizens, and take one of two courses of action based on that finding. This is gender discrimination, plain and simple.

Q: Which gender is discriminated against?

A: Both

LOL. Nice try.