Homosexual Marriage

[Dirty Name]

Not special recognition, just having their marriages regarded as equal.

And I've already pointed out that such marriages AREN'T equal in the eyes of society because they lack the potential for procreation. Further, there is no legal reason why society must treat them equally.

If there were, you would have stated as much by now.

No, nothing happens over night, but if no one speaks up and demands a change, its way too easy to ignore the problem.

Again, there is no problem except that the gay lifestyle isn't regarded the way gays want it to be.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Dirty Name And I've already pointed out that such marriages AREN'T equal in the eyes of society because they lack the potential for procreation. Further, there is no legal reason why society must treat them equally. If there were, you would have stated as much by now.

I agree that they are not equal. That is, they are not the same thing, which is what 'equal' means.

I was just stating that I believe that is the underlying motivation, even though benefits are what is focused on.


For me, equal is not the issue. I regard marriage as being about a lot more than just procreation. Thus, even though a married gay couple must go through extra steps to acquire children, I still <b>choose</b> to regard such marriages as real and legitimate.

When enough of the rest of society has opened its mind to the fact that gay marriages are also deep and meaningful, even without the capacity for straight-forward procreation, then the changes in law will be enacted.

Again, there is no problem except that the gay lifestyle isn't regarded the way gays want it to be.

Precisely, that is the problem. Married gay couples are not regarded as married by many in society. That is what we need to change.

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: Dirty Name And I've already pointed out that such marriages AREN'T equal in the eyes of society because they lack the potential for procreation. Further, there is no legal reason why society must treat them equally.

There is no logical component to citing the ease of procreation as an objective reason for financially favoring one couple over another.

Perhaps they are unequal in terms of procreation-based potential, but the domestic and economic potential is still there. Stable, less fincancially burdened homosexual families can contribute to society as middle class citizens much better if they were not given such excessively large expenses to deal with once they decide to live together.

Edit: Actually, if procreation should be financially augmented to create an objective societal benefit, I suggest it be regulated and licensed rather than allowed by choice as overpopulation has contributed greatly to the poverty issues America has today.

If it is potential that defines right, those who do acts or possess qualities with possible negative potential should also be demoted as citizens in terms of rights for the greatest utilitarian benefit.

Thus, those with downs syndrome, those with anemia, and those with any number of genetic disorders should not be allowed to get married. It is an objective fact that their marraige is more likely to produce negative and more costly results, after all.

If you do not view this as equally objective and fair by the same criteria, be sure to tell me the reasons why. I'll be glad to hear them from someone as obviously utilitarian such as yourself.

[Dirty Name]

There is no logical component to citing the ease of procreation as an objective reason for financially favoring one couple over another.

Oh really? Do you have anything to back that up, or are you just hoping no one will challenge this statement?

The logical reason would be that one type of couple has the potential to cause a substantial impact on the future of society, while the other has an extremely limited potential to do so.

The legal institution of marriage serves as the perfect vehicle for ensuring society's interests are protected to the extent they can be.

Perhaps they are unequal in terms of procreation-based potential, but the domestic and economic potential is still there.

Please tell me how the interests of society are served in terms of the domestic and economic potential of a gay couple, and how marriage would impact that interest from a top-down (i.e. societal) point of view.

If the question sounds confusing, that's your problem. You are the one who made the statement it's based on.

If it is potential that defines right, those who do acts or possess qualities with possible negative potential should also be demoted as citizens in terms of rights for the greatest utilitarian benefit.

You mean like, prison sentences and stuff? Seems to me we already do this.

Thus, those with downs syndrome, those with anemia, and those with any number of genetic disorders should not be allowed to get married. It is an objective fact that their marraige is more likely to produce negative and more costly results, after all.

You aren't getting it either. You see, you can't stop people from having sex without infringing on their freedom.

And since some people choose to exercise their freedom in sexual unions with the potential for procreation, and since those types of unions often result in actual procreation, society has a compelling interest in ensuring that a maximum number of procreative unions occur in a stable environment.

So yes, even retarded people have the right to have sex, but it behooves our society when it is done in a stable environment.

[Hmm]

Quote by: Dirty Name The logical reason would be that one type of couple has the potential to cause a substantial impact on the future of society, while the other has an extremely limited potential to do so.

"Extremely limited?" Can gay couples not adopt children, which has the same effect as creating one?

[Zinkovich]

Oh really? Do you have anything to back that up, or are you just hoping no one will challenge this statement? The logical reason would be that one type of couple has the potential to cause a substantial impact on the future of society, while the other has an extremely limited potential to do so. The legal institution of marriage serves as the perfect vehicle for ensuring society's interests are protected to the extent they can be.

By what logical form of ethics do you put the potential of one's contributions to the next generation in today's society in the center of your argument?

If substantial impact in society is the definer of rights, I would ask why you assume the impact of those getting married with genetic diseases and such would be beneficial in nature. If anything, it is detrimental to the genetic makeup of our society and the support of these medical expenses to keep them healthy and/or taken care of would also incur some sort of cost.

If there is no distinction between positive and negative cost or impact, then homosexuals can in fact be logically given the right to marry as they do have a more expensive method of reproduction using artificial means or adoption.

In fact, adoption is more beneficial as it does away with the otherwise displaced or unwanted children we have in foster homes all over the country. It also does not increase the already dangerously high population of the human race at this point in time.

Please tell me how the interests of society are served in terms of the domestic and economic potential of a gay couple, and how marriage would impact that interest from a top-down (i.e. societal) point of view. If the question sounds confusing, that's your problem. You are the one who made the statement it's based on.

Quite simple. Less taxes and expenses allows greater flexibility and room to expand for stable homosexual couples with jobs. More building and gathering of resources equals a more stable workforce in that sector as well as less of a chance of someone being dropped out of the workforce due to losing their house or such because of inheritance taxes and the death of their partner.

You mean like, prison sentences and stuff? Seems to me we already do this.

Prison sentences of the sort that reduce rights are based on actions rather than personal qualities and conditions. What you are suggesting concerning the financial discrimination towards homosexuals is contingent not on their actions, but who they are- thus, your analogy does not exactly stand.

You aren't getting it either. You see, you can't stop people from having sex without infringing on their freedom.

Freedoms and equal rights obviously should not be given based on the principle of equal rights for all by your logic, but by potential. Otherwise, your argument concerning the reduction of the financial right to forge a civil union due to the potential for procreation does not stand, as it curtails on the financial freedom and equality of the homosexual couples when put aside the heterosexual couples.

And since some people choose to exercise their freedom in sexual unions with the potential for procreation, and since those types of unions often result in actual procreation, society has a compelling interest in ensuring that a maximum number of procreative unions occur in a stable environment.

Allowing the maximum number of procreations is not the most efficient means of assuring a financially stable future for our society. Far too many children are born from such an attitude that incurs a great cost to our society- would it not be better to disallow these negative, costly actions to be done in the first place through regulation and seperation of rights, instead of allowing them to continue when the potential cost is not equal nor the same as the potential cost for healthy couples?

So yes, even retarded people have the right to have sex, but it behooves our society when it is done in a stable environment.

How much does this stable enviroment cost, when compared with the cost of a stable enviroment for a child raised by homosexuals, do you think? I think it is even greater due to the lack of parenting skills in the disabled parents, and thus the marraige of the retarded should be disallowed on the same principle if we are to truly follow the utilitarian basis of your arguments.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name Politics, yes. Advocacy, no.

I see.

Quote by: Dirty Name What is the difference?

polygamy
Main Entry: po·lyg·a·my
Pronunciation: -mE
Function: noun
1 : marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time
2 : the state of being polygamous

Sperm/egg donors are not 'mates' given the context.

Quote by: Dirty Name What is your point in attacking me or my line of work? It has zero to do with the argument at hand, and is also a clear violation of the Volconvo rules. It would be one thing if we were just shooting the breeze, but you bring it up here as though it has some bearing on the relevance of my argument.

1. It is not a violation of Volconvo rules, nor an 'attack', to state facts.

2. Bearing? How about full disclosure? Participants might like to know they're contributing to your income stream in case they'd prefer not to participate.

Quote by: Dirty Name It IS neutral in the eyes of the law. Were it discouraged, there would be some sort of PENALTY applied to the behavior. Looks like you trapped yourself there.

Hardly. The penalty is lack of equal access to benefits.

Quote by: Dirty Name Once again, lack of encouragement is NOT discouragement.

Only in the mind of people that think like you do. Everyone else sees the inequality.

Next?

[Dirty Name]

"Extremely limited?" Can gay couples not adopt children, which has the same effect as creating one?

Of course, but that benefit to society is already recognized via adoption tax credits, medicare and medicade coverage for the adopted child, and various state benefits.

And no, adopting a child doesn't quite have the same effect as creating one.

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: Dirty Name And no, adopting a child doesn't quite have the same effect as creating one.

How is the societal effect so markedly different that it would not count as a similar act in terms of potential?

How would the need for financial support, and the encouragment of a stable family not apply to one with an adopted child? I really would like to hear you on this one, because I myself am adopted and know things would not have been as comfortable for me if my parents weren't allowed to be married just because they couldn't naturally have children.

Edit: I need to slow down my typing speed- sorry for the errors and such.

[fushigi]

Quote by: Dirty Name And no, adopting a child doesn't quite have the same effect as creating one.

But creating a child DOES have the same effect as creating a child. Unfortunately, Dirty hasn't given us a justification for why male-female couples need more benefits to raise a child than lesbian couples.

I expect he'll ignore my post or twist the argument to talk about polygamy or necrophilia or something now.

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: zinkovich If substantial impact in society is the definer of rights, I would ask why you assume the impact of those getting married with genetic diseases and such would be beneficial in nature. If anything, it is detrimental to the genetic makeup of our society and the support of these medical expenses to keep them healthy and/or taken care of would also incur some sort of cost.

There you go again, assuming that sex doesn't occur outside of marriage. Again, sexual relations, and for that matter, marriage occurs regardless of government incentives.

My argument is that those incentives don't encourage marriages, but rather encourage stable marriages. And we need stable marriages ONLY because certain sexual unions result in offspring. If they didn't, why would it matter if people stayed together or not?

Does anyone wish to tackle this question, or are we just going to keep dancing around it?

Quote by: zinkovich If there is no distinction between positive and negative cost or impact, then homosexuals can in fact be logically given the right to marry as they do have a more expensive method of reproduction using artificial means or adoption.

Sorry, not following you here. I don't think you understand my argument.

Quote by: zinkovich In fact, adoption is more beneficial as it does away with the otherwise displaced or unwanted children we have in foster homes all over the country. It also does not increase the already dangerously high population of the human race at this point in time.

Again, adoption is already rewarded via the massive $10,000 adoption tax credit and a number of state benefits, regardless of sexual orientation or marital status.

Quote by: zinkovich Quite simple. Less taxes and expenses allows greater flexibility and room to expand for stable homosexual couples with jobs. More building and gathering of resources equals a more stable workforce in that sector as well as less of a chance of someone being dropped out of the workforce due to losing their house or such because of inheritance taxes and the death of their partner.

Hmmm. OK. But under this logic, heterosexual couples include all the above PLUS the added aspect of potential for pregnancy and childbirth. Therefore, heterosexual couples would qualify for additional benefits above and beyond what is offered to the general population.

Also, how does this relate to couplehood? Could not the same argument be made of single people? Your position doesn't seem to apply to our debate about the legal recognition of marriage. You just want to give away free benefits to all - for no apparent reason other than some socialist notion of more benefits equals a better society.

Quote by: zinkovich What you are suggesting concerning the financial discrimination towards homosexuals is contingent not on their actions, but who they are

Wrong. I would not discriminate against homosexuals as individuals. My argument is for the legal discrimination against same-sex couples. The sexual orientation of the individuals is not really even considered.

Thus, the discrimination occurs because of the actions of the two individuals involved - specifically, when they willingly choose a partner of the same gender and fail to meet the minimum qualifications for legal marriage recognition.

Quote by: zinkovich Freedoms and equal rights obviously should not be given based on the principle of equal rights for all by your logic, but by potential. Otherwise, your argument concerning the reduction of the financial right to forge a civil union due to the potential for procreation does not stand, as it curtails on the financial freedom and equality of the homosexual couples when put aside the heterosexual couples.

Not following you here. It sounds like you are claiming homosexual couples are equal to heterosexual couples, but I don't see anything supporting that.

Quote by: zinkovich Allowing the maximum number of procreations is not the most efficient means of assuring a financially stable future for our society.

You are STILL not getting it. I have NEVER argued for "allowing the maximum number of procreations."

You cannot find anywhere in this forum over the last two years where I have ever said such a thing. Please read more carefully and try to comprehend the concept that we, as a society, have a vested interest to ensure that the maximum number of potentially procreative relationships are stable.

Again, there is no argument here for the maximization of procreation itself, but rather for the maximization of stability for procreative relationships.
Huge difference.

Quote by: zinkovich I think it is even greater due to the lack of parenting skills in the disabled parents, and thus the marraige of the retarded should be disallowed on the same principle if we are to truly follow the utilitarian basis of your arguments.

OK. Let me try to pound this into your skull through sheer repitition:

Retarded people have sex too. Which would you rather have:

a) A population of sex-crazed, mentally-handicapped people moving from one sexual relationship to the next, OR;

b) A population of sex-crazed, mentally-handicapped people in stable marriages?

It's up to you. I trust you'll see the correct path.

Quote by: italiangm Sperm/egg donors are not 'mates' given the context.

In whose opinion? Yours?

Quote by: italiangm 1. It is not a violation of Volconvo rules, nor an 'attack', to state facts. 2. Bearing? How about full disclosure? Participants might like to know they're contributing to your income stream in case they'd prefer not to participate.

Nothing factual about #2. Therefore, it's an ad hominem attack. Further, there is nothing relevant to this argument about my line of work, either.

Quote by: italiangm The penalty is lack of equal access to benefits.

Are people with jobs penalized by the fact that they don't qualify for unemployment benefits?

I rest my case.

Quote by: italiangm Only in the mind of people that think like you do. Everyone else sees the inequality.

Ah, yes. "Everyone else." You mean like the 64% of Ohio voters who voted AGAINST same sex marriage? And like the vast majority of voters in other states who passed similar legislation? Spare me.

[Dirty Name]

How is the societal effect so markedly different that it would not count as a similar act in terms of potential?

In 100% of all adoptions:

The adopter does not experience pregnancy and childbirth, and the adopter has the luxury of family planning.

Contrast this with natural conception and childbirth, and you should begin to see the marked differences.

[Dirty Name]

But creating a child DOES have the same effect as creating a child. Unfortunately, Dirty hasn't given us a justification for why male-female couples need more benefits to raise a child than lesbian couples.

I've never made the claim that more benefits are necessary for hetero couples to raise a child.

The only claim I've EVER made is that hetero couples present a significantly greater effect on society than same sex couples, and on an individual basis, they also face greater burdens (due to pregnancy and childbirth) than same sex couples face. Due to the fact that stable relationships tend to mitigate some of the potential negative burdens on society and on the couple and their potential offspring, it makes sense to offer them certain benefits in order to encourage that stability.

With same-sex couples, the stability of their relationship is nearly inconsequential to society, and as a result, offering the same benefits is unnecessary.

[fushigi]

Quote by: Dirty Name With same-sex couples, the stability of their relationship is nearly inconsequential to society, and as a result, offering the same benefits is unnecessary.

How is it inconsequential? Are you saying that children of lesbian couples aren't negatively affected when their parents split up?

[tinybear]

Quote by: fushigi How is it inconsequential? Are you saying that children of lesbian couples aren't negatively affected when their parents split up?

Children are always negatively affected when their parents split up.

[Dirty Name]

Are you saying that children of lesbian couples aren't negatively affected when their parents split up?

There is no such thing as a "child of a lesbian couple." You are referring to a child born via some interaction of a third party. What compelling interest does our society have to encourage lesbians to engage in child rearing without a fatherfigure? None.

Further, the state has no way to know that lesbians would engage in such behavior. To the extent they wish to acquire a child via adoption, society's interests in the parenting ability of the adopting lesbian is protected via the pre-adoption investigation. To the extent the lesbian wants to acquire a child via insemination, artificial or otherwise, the state has no compelling reason to encourage this or protect this behavior.

[Dirty Name]

Children are always negatively affected when their parents split up.

But in this case, the "parent" is a third party that was already cut out of the relationship from the very start. In cases where one lesbian partners with another and somehow acquires a child via insemination of her partner, that state's interest is to protect and codify the biological parenting relationship, not to encourage the intentional deprivation of that relationship to the child.

Keep in mind, too, that all of these unique and non-traditional parenting relationships are 100% planned occurences - another mitigating factor for society that traditional couples do not always enjoy.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name In whose opinion? Yours?

Merriam-Webster's, actually.

Quote by: Dirty Name Nothing factual about #2. Therefore, it's an ad hominem attack. Further, there is nothing relevant to this argument about my line of work, either.

If you think I'm attacking you by stating fact, get a mod's opinion on the matter. The relevance is obvious.

Quote by: Dirty Name Are people with jobs penalized by the fact that they don't qualify for unemployment benefits?

Apples are not oranges. Every debate-worthy opponent has clearly stated your compelling interest argument is weak.

Quote by: Dirty Name I rest my case.

That is, if you had a case to rest. IMHO, the only case is to right the wrong that currently exists.

Quote by: Dirty Name Ah, yes. "Everyone else." You mean like the 64% of Ohio voters who voted AGAINST same sex marriage? And like the vast majority of voters in other states who passed similar legislation? Spare me.

All bought and paid for using political and relgiious scare tactics. White folk couldn't marry black folk, either. Just because the majority felt that way didn't make it right or just. Oh wait. I think I hear the squeaky wheels of that tired old 'activist judges' trojan rolling up the road again.