Homosexual Marriage

[Zee-Axis]

Quote by: Dirty Name More irrelevance. Divorce and infedility are failings of individual marriages, not of the institution. Likewise, people who rip their money in half or burn it in fireplace are not proof that the economy is failing.

If I own a company that makes widgets and half of the ones I shipped last year are faulty, is that a problem with the individual widgets or a problem with the production "process"?

(just getting bored with the $50 analogy)

[Dirty Name]

If I own a company that makes widgets and half of the ones I shipped last year are faulty, is that a problem with the individual widgets or a problem with the production "process"?

Allow me to point out why your analogy is wrong and why mine perfectly illustrates the point.

Realizing you're "tired" of the "counterfeit" analogy (after a grueling two pages - whew - better take a break from Volconvo if that makes you tired), I will revisit it again to further illustrate my point.

First, I used my analogy to answer the challenge posed to me of "how gay marriages harm existing marriages."

The point made with the analogy is this: Like real $50 bills in your wallet, counterfeit bills have little noticeable impact on the value of the real thing. If you and your friend go to Best Buy, and your friend spends $50 in counterfeit currency on CD's, DVD's and electronics, it won't stop you from spending your real $50 bill on similar merchandise. Likewise, the gay couple next door isn't going to exert noticeable harm on your own marriage just because the government recognizes their union.

Back to counterfeit money...even though the negative effect isn't immediately perceptible, it is there, and our government certainly perceives the threat to be real. What if hundreds of people showed up to Best Buy and purchased all of the items you wanted using fake money? If people can print their own money whenever they want it, suddenly the economy is a complete disaster. Prices skyrocket, and those using real money have nothing. Extreme example? Sure. But compare it to marriage.

If any two people can declare themselves married whenever they want, the pool of benefits reserved for traditional couples must increase substantially, or someone will be forced to do without. Thus, in a pool of limited resources, someone is going to be discriminated against. In our society, we have decided that the people who are least qualified for marriage benefits are ...drum roll please... same sex couples. There are other harms to the institution of marriage as well, such as the blurring of what marriage is and is not, and it's long term impact on the nuclear family over many generations, but these are less tangible than the resource argument. And yes,
I know your next line of attack will be to claim that there are ample resources to go around, and, gee, we should strengthen and encourage any two people who pledge to support one another for life, etc, etc.

Well, that's crap. But I'll wait for you to raise that argument before I destroy it.

OK, now for your widget analogy...

You erroneously assume that the institution of marriage is to blame for the failures of individual unions. I submit to you that marriage is little more than a set of rules, and marriages that fail consist of two people who decided to break the rules.

Your analogy falsely compares the institution of marriage with the "process" of manufacturing widgets. This is wrong because the institution of marriage is not a process in the least. It's merely a set of rules, norms and traditions.

Using the same logic that led you to conclude the institution of marriage is flawed and is the root cause for divorce, should we also do away with criminal laws because people break them every day? Of course not. Because it's not the institution, or the rules, or the laws that cause problems - it's the failures and shortcomings of individuals who fail to operate within the established framework.

No charge for the logic lesson.

[fushigi]

Quote by: Dirty Name Are you telling me that sexual relations between gay people has the exact same impact on society as a sexual relationship between a male and a female? I'm guessing you're about to answer your own question.

Again, why are we talking about sex? I thought this thread was about marriage.

[Dirty Name]

Again, why are we talking about sex? I thought this thread was about marriage.

Now you're getting it. Tell me - without the consequences of a sexual relationship, what point would there be for society to recognize marriages in the first place? In other words, why not grant marriage benefits to, say, my grandmother and her spinster daughter, who will never marry and will live with Grandma until death?

Likewise, why not grant marriage benefits to a couple of straight apartment mates in New York City? College roommates? Brothers who live together? Should we grant marriage benefits to a male and female who have never met and live on opposite coasts?

I look forward to you answering your own question.

[RickSp]

Quote by: fushigi Again, why are we talking about sex? I thought this thread was about marriage.

DN attempts to construct convoluted arguments based on perceived social benefits which ignore the core issue of why all individuals in society should not be treated fairly in allowing access to societal institutions. His outlook is fundamentally totalitarian.

[Zee-Axis]

Quote by: Dirty Name Using the same logic that led you to conclude the institution of marriage is flawed and is the root cause for divorce, should we also do away with criminal laws because people break them every day? Of course not. Because it's not the institution, or the rules, or the laws that cause problems - it's the failures and shortcomings of individuals who fail to operate within the established framework.

The institution of marriage is not flawed. It's the administering of the institution that is flawed.
No, we should not do away with laws because people break them. We should re-evaluate how those laws are administered and what the penalties should be, based on there detrimental effects on society.
If large occurances of divorce and infidelity do not diminish the institution of marraige, it is silly to think that allowing gays to marry would be any worse and it should not be disallowed.

Oh, and I understand your $50 bill analogy, I just don't agree with it and, I don't need it explained to me but, thanks for the logic lesson anyway.

Feel free to preemptively destroy any of my arguements before I make them. Its just that much less typing I have to do.

[Dirty Name]

DN attempts to construct convoluted arguments based on perceived social benefits which ignore the core issue of why all individuals in society should not be treated fairly in allowing access to societal institutions. His outlook is fundamentally totalitarian.

RickSP attempts to discredit others by ignoring the substance and attacking all else. In this case, he completely ignores the fact that I have continuously and consistently explained why we aren't talking about individual rights here. Show me the violation of individual rights, Rick. He has been challenged in the past to provide proof that my argument violates someone's individual rights, and has failed to do so.

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: Dirty Name Irrelevant. Sexual relationships between two women do not carry with them the same consequences - both positive and negative - that sexual relationships between males and females carry. End of story. You people can conjure up all the bizarre genetic experimentation you want, it doesn't change the basic biological fact that sexual relationships between males and females are more significant to society and the individuals involved than sexual relationships between same sex couples. In the latter, all you have is physical and emotional gratification. In the former, you have the same gratification issues PLUS the additional - and awesome - potential to create new human life, and all of the life-changing decisions that go along with that responsibility. This is simply not an apples to apples comparison.

Isn't LOVE "emotional gratification? Didn't Jesus preach LOVE?

And do you only have sex when you want to make another baby? Do you consider birth control sinful? Isn't sex without the direct intention of producing offspring just "physical gratification"?

And there are alot of hetrosexual couples who will NEVER produce offspring. My relationship is one of those. Should my relationship be outlawed?


Your excuses for your Homophobia are growing thin. There are wars going on, people dying, people worldwide starving. There are crime problems and drug problems and economic problems, and you choose to obsess on WHO LOVES WHOM?


Again, tell me what HARM to society will come from letting people live their lives? So far no one wants to answer that.

[Dirty Name]

If large occurances of divorce and infidelity do not diminish the institution of marraige, it is silly to think that allowing gays to marry would be any worse and it should not be disallowed.

I've never raised the issue of infidelity or divorce, and am not clear on how it applies to my argument. The central premise, and one which continues to be ignored by most, is the idea that the state has a compelling interest in heterosexual relationships that it does not have in same-sex relationships. The consequences (read: burdens and benefits) are not equal.

So why should the two unions receive equal treatment? I contend they shouldn't.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Dirty Name RickSP attempts to discredit others by ignoring the substance and attacking all else. In this case, he completely ignores the fact that I have continuously and consistently explained why we aren't talking about individual rights here. Show me the violation of individual rights, Rick. He has been challenged in the past to provide proof that my argument violates someone's individual rights, and has failed to do so.

You may not be talking about individual rights here. You keep talking about supporting the "potential for pregnancy" and other nonsense. The rest of us are indeed talking about individual rights, even if that may offend your authoritarian perspective.

Why should men and women be denied the rights, benefits, and obligations of marriage because they are homosexual? They are but the latest and perhaps last minority to seek equal rights under the law.

- Only after the Civil War were African-Americans allowed to marry legally.
- Only after 1967 were mixed race couples allowed to marry anywhere in the U.S.
- Until recently homosexuals could not marry anywhere in the world. Now parts of Western Europe and Canada allow same sex marriages. Their cultures have neither crumbled nor collapsed.

In countries where same-sex marriage has been legalized--Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, and Spain--the rate of heterosexual marriage stability has either gone up, remained stable, or declined consistent with other countries in the region that do not recognize same-sex marriage.

Civil Liberties

Currently a committed same sex couple can live together in the US, can own property together, yet the cannot file income taxes jointly, or visit each other in the hospital, or inherit one another's property. Until 2003 even having same sex was illegal in many states.

The truth is that same sex couples around the country are already "marrying" regardless of whether their marriages are sanctioned by the state. They are living in committed relationships. The only difference between their "marriages" and mine with my wife is that they are penalized by the tax system and discriminated against in various privileges and duties, large and small. They should be treated frailly, but even if they are not they will continue to marry and one day not so long from now their marriages will be legally recognized.

[Zee-Axis]

Quote by: Mozart1220 Again, tell me what HARM to society will come from letting people live their lives? So far no one wants to answer that.

answer: No harm...
count that as 1 answer.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Mozart1220 Again, tell me what HARM to society will come from letting people live their lives? So far no one wants to answer that.

Here in New Jersey we have had same sex civil unions for about a month and so far no catastrophes have struck. No plagues of locusts or frogs. Civil society has not been compromised by all I can see. I am still happily married to my wife and all my friends who were happily married, still are. No one I know has shown any inclination to marry their pets as Rick Santorum predicted they might.

[Zee-Axis]

Quote by: Dirty Name The central premise, and one which continues to be ignored by most, is the idea that the state has a compelling interest in heterosexual relationships that it does not have in same-sex relationships. The consequences (read: burdens and benefits) are not equal.

Would your position be that, the state has receives some "benefit" from unions between heterosexuals? One so great that they are "compelled" to regulate marriage?

Do you think it would be possible to quantify (with dollar signs), the impact that allowing gays to marry would have?

After a thorough reading of "burdens and benefits", it appears certain that it's not a moral or spiritual issue, it's a fiscal issue. Would you agree?

[Dirty Name]

Your excuses for your Homophobia are growing thin. There are wars going on, people dying, people worldwide starving. There are crime problems and drug problems and economic problems, and you choose to obsess on WHO LOVES WHOM?

Love has never been part of my argument, ever. I don't know where you come up with this stuff. It is irrelevant in the eyes of the state. It doesn't matter to the state whom you love, and it certainly isn't a legal requirement for marriage.

Next red herring, please.

And do you only have sex when you want to make another baby?

Nope. Exactly the point. Sex happens. As a result, so does pregnancy, whether it is intended or not. The legal recognition of marriage is a mitigation tool for society to ensure a maximum positive impact of procreation, and minimal negative impact.

In gay unions, the consequences are far less relevant to the state.

And there are alot of hetrosexual couples who will NEVER produce offspring. My relationship is one of those. Should my relationship be outlawed?

No, you relationship should not be outlawed. For starters, how does the state know this?

For fun, let's assume it was the law that childless, infertile couples were banned getting married. Please explain to me how the state would enforce this law, in your mind.

Bottom line: It would be foolish, invasive, inconsistent and/or not cost effective to screen infertile couples, not to mention such a policy ignores the fact that many couples make plans for having a family, such as sacrificing career goals, purchasing decisions, etc., only to learn later that they are infertile. Such decisions are typically within the best interests of the state, and these people, especially women, deserve the protecion afforded by legal recognition of marriage.

[Dirty Name]

Why should men and women be denied the rights, benefits, and obligations of marriage because they are homosexual?

No one is denied marriage benefits "because they are homosexual." They are denied marriage benefits because the gender composition of their union fails to meet a specific legal standard.

Gays are allowed to marry, provided they choose a partner who is of the opposite gender. Like it or not, that's a fact. Sexual preference is NOT a consideration when the state grants benefits. It never even comes up.

They are but the latest and perhaps last minority to seek equal rights under the law.

Hardly. If homosexuals are a minority, do pedophiles not logically qualify? What about polygamists? Etc. When does it ever end? Do tell.

[Dirty Name]

The truth is that same sex couples around the country are already "marrying" regardless of whether their marriages are sanctioned by the state. They are living in committed relationships. The only difference between their "marriages" and mine with my wife is that they are penalized by the tax system and discriminated against in various privileges and duties, large and small.

And rightfully so, because their relationships do not represent the same compelling interest in the eyes of the state. What makes them any different from my grandmother and my aunt, who will live together in the same house until they both die? Why should the state grant them "marriage" recognition?

If you argue for one and against the other, your argument is no different from mine. If you argue in favor of marriage for everyone, I'll demonstrate why that's a very bad idea.

[Dirty Name]

Here in New Jersey we have had same sex civil unions for about a month and so far no catastrophes have struck.

HAHAHA. That's a good one. It's almost as though you think I have claimed otherwise.

People, get real. Conduct an honest evaluation of my argument and determine the truth for yourselves. I have never claimed a catastrophe would strike, that a plague of locusts would descend upon New Jersey, and certainly not that it would occur within a month.

[Dirty Name]

Zee-Axis, those are the first legitimate questions I've seen in a long time. Congrats for being the first to admit my argument is not based on spiritual or moral views.

I will answer your questions when I get home. I have to get some work done now. Look for it later tonight.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Dirty Name HAHAHA. That's a good one. It's almost as though you think I have claimed otherwise. People, get real. Conduct an honest evaluation of my argument and determine the truth for yourselves. I have never claimed a catastrophe would strike, that a plague of locusts would descend upon New Jersey, and certainly not that it would occur within a month.

As I recall, you ran away from our one-on-one debate on this topic.

Fundamentally, your belief in this regard is dependent on people wanting government to recognize marriage for the same reasons that you want government to recognize marriage. If people don't think like you, your argument breaks down.

Also, your claims of harm to traditional marriage are speculative.


Make a prediction - how long until we see the breakdown of traditional marriages in countries that allow gay marriage?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Dirty Name No one is denied marriage benefits "because they are homosexual." They are denied marriage benefits because the gender composition of their union fails to meet a specific legal standard. Gays are allowed to marry, provided they choose a partner who is of the opposite gender. Like it or not, that's a fact. Sexual preference is NOT a consideration when the state grants benefits. It never even comes up.

More nonsense and drivel. Why do you bother? "The gender composition of their union" which "fails to meet a specific legal standard" is that they are homosexual. Therefore, they are denied marriage benefits because they are homosexual. Suggesting that they could marry so long as they pretend to be straight and marry someone of the opposite sex is an idiotic assertion, to be overly polite.

Quote by: Dirty Name Hardly. If homosexuals are a minority, do pedophiles not logically qualify? What about polygamists? Etc. When does it ever end? Do tell.

Are you now associating pedophiles and polygamists with homosexuals? And you left out practitioners of bestiality and necrophilia. You are getting sloppy with your slurs. If you are going to raise stupid non-sequitors, at least try to be complete.