Homosexual Marriage

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Dirty Name I'm claiming that society has a vested interest in procreation - but not in all it's forms.

How can "society" have a vested interest in anything? Once again, we come back to the root of your argument -- collectivism. The idea that individual rights must be suboordinate to the good of society. Please just admit that you're preaching communism.

Quote by: Dirty Name Statistically, procreation within a marriage is the least burdensome for society.

How is it possible for procreation, under an circumstances, to be "burdensome for society"?

And again you refer to the Mystery Statistics which you have never produced for us to actually see. We're just supposed to take your word on it?

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Dirty Name 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 -

It's not ignorant of it at all. I deny that there is any meaningful connection between childbirth and marriage.

Quote by: Dirty Name 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.

How is adoption burdensome to anyone but the adoptive parents? If anything, it is lifting a burden.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Dirty Name Q: Which gender is discriminated against?

"gender discrimination" does not mean that one gender is being rewarded at the expense of the other. It simply means that the state is discriminating the gender of the citizen, and taking a different action based on that.

[Dirty Name]

-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.

I've answered this so many times over the course of this discussion, and you never seem to realize how flawed your post above really is.

Virtually every one of the rights you listed above are available RIGHT NOW to any two people, period. So in effect, what you are arguing for is some sort of lawsuit-proof system where the court has no jurisdiction over the final disposition of the contract.

Gays can enter into whatever sort of contract they wish, and most times, the courts will honor the contract.

Why don't you go ask Anna Nicole Smith or her late husband's family if marriage is some kind of automatic guarantee of contract. Here's news - it isn't.

So again, I ask you, what "right" is denied to gay couples that is specifically granted to straight couples?

[Dirty Name]

How can "society" have a vested interest in anything? Once again, we come back to the root of your argument -- collectivism. The idea that individual rights must be suboordinate to the good of society. Please just admit that you're preaching communism.

It simply isn't credible to claim that society at large doesn't have a vested interest in it's own survival. And to make the leap from that to "communism" is about as foolish a statement as any I've ever read. Tell me, does the United States of America - all it's citizens - have a vested interest in the survival of the nation? Are we communist? Hardly.

[Dirty Name]

It simply means that the state is discriminating the gender of the citizen, and taking a different action based on that.

Incorrect, Dr. Freeman. The state is clearly NOT discriminating on the gender of the individual citizen, but rather the specific gender composition of TWO citizens. An entirely different concept. It requires a comparison of TWO citizens in order to make the determination, and it cannot be done on an indvidual basis.

[Dirty Name]

How is it possible for procreation, under an circumstances, to be "burdensome for society"?

I submit to the group that, generally speaking, out-of-wedlock childbirths result in a higher rate of state-dependent children (and ultimately, adults).

If you deny this, I will produce statistics to support the claim. However, I generally believe that most people both understand the truth of the claim, and the underlying cause. Please let me know if you are one of the skeptics.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Dirty Name Gays can enter into whatever sort of contract they wish, and most times, the courts will honor the contract.

No, they can't. That's the whole point of this debate. The current legal structure explicitly denies citizens the right to contract.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Dirty Name Virtually every one of the rights you listed above are available RIGHT NOW to any two people, period.

How about you pull your head out of the sand? If there were true, no one would be having this debate.

[Dirty Name]

No, they can't. That's the whole point of this debate. The current legal structure explicitly denies citizens the right to contract.

PROVE IT. The right to contract is not necessarily the right to marry. Any two people can enter into an agreement with one another for a variety of reasons, including survivorship, guardianship, etc.

Prove me wrong or drop this absurd argument.

[Dirty Name]

How about you pull your head out of the sand? If there were true, no one would be having this debate.

Nonsense. Gays use those lies to fool otherwise intelligent people such as yourself into believing their sob stories. See my previous post.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Dirty Name It simply isn't credible to claim that society at large doesn't have a vested interest in it's own survival.

As far as I'm concerned, it isn't credible or even coherent to say that something as abstract as "society" can have an "interest". Are you going to explain yourself or not?

Quote by: Dirty Name And to make the leap from that to "communism" is about as foolish a statement as any I've ever read.

It's crystal clear to me. You seem to be claiming that individual interests be suboordinate to some "greater good". That's exactly what communism is.

Quote by: Dirty Name Tell me, does the United States of America - all it's citizens - have a vested interest in the survival of the nation?

Absolutely not.

Quote by: Dirty Name Are we communist? .

Definitely getting there. You certainly are adding to the movement.

[Dirty Name]

It's not ignorant of it at all. I deny that there is any meaningful connection between childbirth and marriage.

And again, you would be wrong. The meaningful connection can be found in welfare statistics, where out-of-wedlock births are the primary source of drag on our welfare system.

SMACK. Wake up.

[Dirty Name]

Your position with regard to society as an entity lacks imagination and a sense of reality.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Dirty Name PROVE IT. The right to contract is not necessarily the right to marry. Any two people can enter into an agreement with one another for a variety of reasons, including survivorship, guardianship, etc. Prove me wrong or drop this absurd argument.

Well, now you've got me curious. I haven't followed this entire thread, and I would be surprised if, in 300 pages, no one provided any such evidence. And it's not obvious to me that the burden of proof falls on our side rather than yours, but I'm going to research it anyway.

There is one particular right that I know for a fact can't be reclaimed short of marriage, and that's the right of immigration. I know this because I've been through the process. If I were to, say, have a gay lover in Japan, and I wanted to bring him here to live with me, I wouldn't be able to. But if that lover were a woman, I could simply apply for a marriage visa.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Dirty Name And again, you would be wrong. The meaningful connection can be found in welfare statistics, where out-of-wedlock births are the primary source of drag on our welfare system.

Welfare? Is that what this is all about?

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Dirty Name Your position with regard to society as an entity lacks imagination and a sense of reality.

Hmmm... imagination and reality. That's quite the justaposition. :eek:

Your position with regard to society is, in my opinion, incoherent and more than a bit frightening.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name Nonsense. Gays use those lies to fool otherwise intelligent people such as yourself into believing their sob stories. See my previous post.

January 19, 2006
Dying Officer Again Turned Down on Benefits for Companion
By DAMIEN CAVE

TOMS RIVER, N.J., Jan. 18 - Rejecting an emotional videotaped plea from a lesbian police lieutenant on the verge of death, Ocean County's freeholders declined once again on Wednesday to approve a resolution that would let county employees pass on their pension benefits to domestic partners.

For more than a year, the freeholders have repeatedly refused to consider the resolution, and their opposition has become increasingly controversial over the past few months.

On Wednesday, it appeared likely that the lieutenant, Laurel Hester, a veteran investigator in the county prosecutor's office, would die without seeing her quest fulfilled. Friends said she probably had only a few weeks to live.

Perhaps as a result, the monthly meeting of the freeholders created an atmosphere of electric urgency. Every seat in the wood-paneled room on Hooper Street here was filled, mostly with Lieutenant Hester's supporters, including clergymen, veterans and fellow officers. Over the course of two hours, shouting matches over morality ruptured the civility common at county meetings.

Steven Goldstein, chairman of Garden State Equality, a New Jersey gay rights group, began the period of public comment by sarcastically thanking the freeholders for advancing the cause of gay marriage by turning Lieutenant Hester into a martyr. He then picked up a laptop computer and played the video of what he said was likely her final plea for help.

All five freeholders sat silently as Lieutenant Hester, 49, appeared onscreen. "I've been diagnosed with several brain tumors, hence the loss of hair," she said. "In addition, it has spread elsewhere."

She explained that she wanted to extend her pension benefits to her domestic partner, Stacie Andree, 30, a mechanic, so that she can afford to keep the house in Point Pleasant that they bought several years ago. "All I'm asking for is that you sign the resolution and that you make a change," Lieutenant Hester said in the video, wheezing, "a change for good, a change for righteousness, and a change in the lives of so many people that have dedicated themselves to county government."

Ms. Andree did not attend the meeting, and was by Lieutenant Hester's bedside on Wednesday night.

Gerry P. Little, one of the freeholders, said Lieutenant Hester "is in our prayers and our thoughts." In response to critics, he and the other freeholders laid out several reasons for their decision not to act on a state law allowing local governments to grant benefits to their employees' domestic partners. Freeholder John C. Bartlett Jr. said the cost would be too high. Freeholder John P. Kelly, denying that Lieutenant Hester's sexual orientation was an issue - over shouts of derision from the audience - said the domestic partnership law was unfair because it did not let siblings or other relatives not married to each other share benefits when they lived together. But members of the crowd, holding signs declaring "Don't Let Laurel Hester Die Like This," seemed to find the argument disingenuous; several people chanted, "You have the power, you have the power."

"Six other counties have shown that you have the power to act," said George Farrugia, president of the Gay Officers Action League, a law enforcement group. "Your inaction is reprehensible."

Others said they were simply confused by the freeholders' stance. Lou Spadaro, 75, a retired veteran, said it was a "no brainer" to let Ms. Andree receive the benefits because she shared in the "highs and lows" of a loving relationship.

The only person to speak in the freeholders' defense was, Jessica Murachanian, an 18-year-old student at Toms River High School East, who said: "It's unfair and outrageous to come up here and call these men uncaring. No one knows these men."

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/19/ny...gewanted=print

[Morgan_Freeman]

Thanks, but that's not really what I'm looking for. This kind of falls in a gray area. There's no "right" to pension benefits and therefore there's no right to have those benefits passed on to a domestic partner.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Thanks, but that's not really what I'm looking for. This kind of falls in a gray area. There's no "right" to pension benefits and therefore there's no right to have those benefits passed on to a domestic partner.

My comment wasn't addressed to you.