Homosexual Marriage

[Dirty Name]

And what the heck do career sacrifices have to do with this topic?

Has there ever been a time when a lesbian in a committed lesbian relationship had to quit her job for health reasons due to an unexpected pregnancy?

[Jack]

How the hell could either of us claim to know?

[Dirty Name]

If this is true, and the statement "the state offers you and your spouse incentives to formalize your intimate, potentially procreative relationship." is true, how is marriage not intended to promote procreation?? WHY would the government give incentives to only legally married couples inorder to support procreation?

I grow weary of trying to pound this into your brain...

We can agree that sexual relations occur both inside and outside of marriage.

We can agree that pregancy occurs both inside and outside of marriage.

We can agree that the state needs children to be born in order to survive into perpetuity.

We can agree that the state need NOT encourage children to be born, because it happens often enough without encouragement from the state.

We can agree that when children are raised in a stable environment, they tend to be less likely to become wards of the state.

We can agree then, that the state wants children to be born, and wants them raised in a stable environment, but does not need to encourage sexual relations, nor does it need to encourage procreation. Of the four items listed, three occur on their own, naturally. The fourth - procreation within a stable environment - does not always happen naturally.

We should be able to agree then, that the state is serving it's interest when it encourages couples to engage in sexually procreative activity within a stable relationship. The best known form of encouragement is the institution of marriage.

Thus, the state is not encouraging procreation, because that happens automatically. Rather, the state is encouraging stable sexual relationships among potentially procreative couples. A significant difference.

[Dirty Name]

How the hell could either of us claim to know?

Maybe I lack proper understanding of the terms "lesbian" and "committed."

[Dirty Name]

What IS the purpose of marriage then, and how do homosexuals NOT fit into that catagory??

Let's try this in reverse:

Should the government care if relationships between couples are long-term and committed?

I can't wait to have your answer, Nikkums.

[fushigi]

Quote by: Dirty Name Has there ever been a time when a lesbian in a committed lesbian relationship had to quit her job for health reasons due to an unexpected pregnancy?

Are you saying that lesbians who become pregnant intentionally don't have to quit their jobs for health reasons?

Just because a birth is planned doesn't reduce the financial necessities of caring for a baby.

[Dirty Name]

You are ASSUMING that homosexual couples do not have children, or are infertile, and therefore will not benifit from a stable environment.

Incorrect. I just know that people who already have children, or who acquire them via adoption, are granted benefits in other forms - either through adoption tax credits, through single-parent tax breaks, etc.

And yet, they allow seniors to get married at will. Seniors are less likely to need stability for their growing families.

Nope. They need other sorts of benefits though. Such as social security survivor benefits for a woman who raised her children as a stay at home mom - to the benefit of the state - but who has obviously sacrificed a career to do so.

More importantly, to deny seniors the marriage benefit would be to engage in individual age discrimination, which is illegal in this country.

Again, PROVE that the government has interest in creating stable environments by proving tax benifits to married couples. PROVE that the state DOES have compelling interest to recognize senior marriages. I do not want any more of your speculations, I want links to government sites stating these facts. I am tired of looking up YOUR claims on my own.

Before I dance like your little organ-grinder monkey, why don't you PROVE that gay people are discriminated against when they are denied same-sex marriage benefits. Here's the only question you have to answer and defend:

What legal right - available to straight couples - are gays denied?

[Dirty Name]

Are you saying that lesbians who become pregnant intentionally don't have to quit their jobs for health reasons?

Nope. I'm saying that unplanned pregnancies and all the burdens associated with them are experienced exclusively by straight couples, making them unequal to gay couples.

[Dirty Name]

Just because a birth is planned doesn't reduce the financial necessities of caring for a baby.

Just because a lesbian gets pregnant with a turkey baster doesn't mean the government should incentivize that behavior.

[fushigi]

Quote by: Dirty Name Just because a lesbian gets pregnant with a turkey baster doesn't mean the government should incentivize that behavior.

Who cares about the method so long as the result is the same? You're still producing another taxpayer either way, and that's what the government cares about most.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name Nope. I'm saying that unplanned pregnancies and all the burdens associated with them are experienced exclusively by straight couples, making them unequal to gay couples.

So, because of this unique inequality, taxpayers should be forced to subsidize a couple's inability to engage in family planning? Oh, that's right.... we'll be forced to pay for support anyway through welfare and other safety net services

Seems like the burdens caused by this unique inequality should be fixed at the source, rather than blaming a same-sex couples desire for equal rights as somehow draining the reserves set aside for solving the problem.

This 'oh well, it happens' line of reasoning perpetuates a lack of personal responsibility, which doesn't fit at all with your 'compelling interest' logic.

[Captain Chaos]

Dirty Name is not pursuing logic.

He dislikes gay marriage, and is pursuing manipulative arguments to support his position.

There is a big difference.


It took a while, but in our one-on-one debate I managed to counter all of his points quite effectively. Then he quit the debate.


Just remember, you are debating with him for your own practice against the opposition, not because you expect to change his mind.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Just remember, you are debating with him for your own practice against the opposition, not because you expect to change his mind.

Actually, I debate the obvious gaps in his tactics for newbies viewing the thread, not to change his mind.

We already know he has ulterior motives for bringing the debate here. This was simply a platform for testing his arguments. We supplied him with the counter arguments he needed to resolve in order to remain employed in the conservative organization he works for. It's quite possible he may not personally subscribe to the assertions he makes here.

In the end, I'm confident the average citizen will be increasingly exposed to inequalities experienced in the lives of gay people over time, understand the negative impact they bring to society overall, and seek to correct them.

[Captain Chaos]

Interesting.


I believe his fundamental flaw lies in putting so much weight on the claim that government should be legally recognizing marriage for the purpose of fostering a stable environment for married couples who have kids by accident.

This is just too narrow to buy into. And he uses manipulative arguments, rather than persuasive numerical data, to back it up.

[Dirty Name]

You're still producing another taxpayer either way, and that's what the government cares about most.

My how cynical you are. And of course I disagree. The method DOES matter, and the government has no interest in encouraging procreation where one biological parent isn't present.

[Dirty Name]

So, because of this unique inequality, taxpayers should be forced to subsidize a couple's inability to engage in family planning? Oh, that's right.... we'll be forced to pay for support anyway through welfare and other safety net services

Now you're getting it. It's just a lot more effective when the money is spent up front.

[Nikkums]

Quote by: Dirty Name Let's try this in reverse: Should the government care if relationships between couples are long-term and committed? I can't wait to have your answer, Nikkums.

Should they and do they are two completely different things!! You are claiming they DO care based on YOUR belief that they SHOULD care.

PROVE that they DO care and I will consider you coherent!

I am tired of you talking out of your a**.. PROVE something or your position is completely irrelevent to this discussion.

[Dirty Name]

We already know he has ulterior motives for bringing the debate here. This was simply a platform for testing his arguments.

Correct.

We supplied him with the counter arguments he needed to resolve in order to remain employed in the conservative organization he works for.

Incorrect.

It's quite possible he may not personally subscribe to the assertions he makes here.

The assertions are mine.

In the end, I'm confident the average citizen will be increasingly exposed to inequalities experienced in the lives of gay people

Such as the fact that they don't experience pregnancy and childbirth within their relationship - a glaring inequality.

Actually, I debate the obvious gaps in his tactics for newbies viewing the thread, not to change his mind.

I would argue that there are no gaps at all, but, like you, I too am here to demonstrate to the newbies the flaws in the "homosexuality is immoral vs. shut up, you religous bigot, we want free money" debate.

I believe his fundamental flaw lies in putting so much weight on the claim that government should be legally recognizing marriage for the purpose of fostering a stable environment for married couples who have kids by accident.

Oh, so close! You almost were able to state my argument, but you just had to throw that "by accident" part on the end.

You see, the "by accident" part is just one of the more glaringly obvious inequalities that exist between gay and straight couples. Don't think for a moment my argument is limited to that single distinction.

Perhaps you seized on this because of my one-line response to the question:

Are you saying that lesbians who become pregnant intentionally don't have to quit their jobs for health reasons?

It appears that my answer set off a firestorm of responses, as though it is the only basis for my argument.

The bottom line is that there is no compelling interest for the government to encourage a child-rearing environment that requires a third party. In the event a lesbian intentionally impregnates herself, she has made a willful decision to purposefully deprive her child of the opportunity to be raised by the child's biological father.

While there are examples of well-adjusted children raised intentionally without a biological father, and while people are certainly free to do so, there is no compelling reason to encourage and empower lesbians to engage in such behavior.

I challenge any of you people to explain how the public interest is served by encouraging such behavior.

[Nikkums]

Quote by: Dirty Name What legal right - available to straight couples - are gays denied?

TO GET MARRIED!! Legally married, just like everyone else. Not jump through hoops, and pay more money, and have to change birth certificates inorder to adopt their spouses name. To not be treated like a second class citizen because the dynamics of their personal relationship are slightly different from the "all american family" that does even exist anyway.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name Now you're getting it. It's just a lot more effective when the money is spent up front.

No, I've always been aware of your cockeyed logic.

Not offering incentives to make mistakes, and encouraging personal responsibility, would be more effective.

Safety net benefits are essentially a loan that all taxpayers must eventually pay for. The state's TRUE compelling interest is to limit size of government.