Homosexual Marriage

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Dirty Name If they don't, then the entire liberal philosophy is about to come crashing down. Bye-bye welfare. Bye-bye food stamps.

So the basis of your argument is, "Well, liberals think it's right." I see.

Quote by: Dirty Name The idea is pretty straightforward and logical: Financial benefits help the recipient - in this case, a heterosexual couple with the potential for pregnancy - and in turn, those recipients are less likely to become burdens on society.

I thoroughly agree that the people who are given the financial benefits are less likely to become a further burden on society -- though they are already a burden simply by the fact that they take money from society -- but that wasn't the basis of your argument. Because if the only people we are concerned with helping is the parents, then it follows that we should also give money to homosexuals so they will not become greater burdens on society themselves -- which, I hope you'll note, is my argument. Your argument is that the CHILDREN of those who take these financial benefits are also less likely to become burdens on society, and yes, I'd like to see some proof of that. Nothing overly dramatic; maybe just some statistics that show that, since the government began subsidizing married couples, the rate of "bad" children from married couples has decreased compared to the rate of "bad" children from unmarried couples. Have you got that? Of course, we'll also have to consider the influence of other factors -- but if the number of "bad" kids from married couples has gone down since the government started giving out marriage benefits, at least that's a place to start.

Quote by: Dirty Name The question becomes - where do you draw the line? And as I have always answered, you draw it in the most obvious place: one man and one woman. It need not be more complex than that.

First you have to include the kid in that group -- and that's the proof I'm asking for.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Dirty Name This is what I mean by "chameleon argument." On one hand, you argue in favor of government recognition of gay marriage, while on the other hand, you argue for the abolition of marriage as a government recognized institution.

I'm giving you the choice. You don't want the choice? Fine; my choice would be that everyone should get marriage benefits. Everyone. Your mother and her sister, my two gay friends, myself and my childless wife, you and your wife and your X children. Everyone. Because my research into this issue, while not extensive by any means, has shown some evidence that marriage tends to make people more settled, more reliable, and more productive -- and I think that is a good thing.

Quote by: Dirty Name Why don't you tell me exactly why gays want marriage benefits. Spare me the cry for equality. I've shown repeatedly that gay couples do not have the same needs as heterosexual couples - the best you can possibly do is the lesbians with turkey-basters argument. Even if they were equal (and they aren't), why do same-sex couples WANT the benefits?

Do me a favor: since I have never talked about lesbians with turkey basters, save that for the people who actually bring it up, okay? I know there's too many of us to keep straight, but it would be great if you addressed my arguments specifically. Thanks.

Spare you the cry for equality, huh? Okay. Gay couples want the marriage benefits because that would mean more money in their pockets. Same thing for heterosexual couples. But then, the issue isn't really why they want the marriage benefits, is it? It's whether or not they have the right to claim the marriage benefits. And for you to prove that homosexual couples don't have the right to claim marriage benefits, you need to prove that the couples are in fact different -- because the heterosexual couples put the money to one specific use: improving the chances for their kids to grow up to be productive citizens. And using the money successfully for that sole purpose. My argument as to why they have the right to claim the marriage benefits is that they are citizens of the United States, and as such have the same right as everyone else: to live with the person they want to, and get paid for it.

Quote by: Dirty Name I ask this because you are advocating a position that demands government recognition and benefits, while at the same time claiming that government shouldn't be in the marriage business. Your argument is so inconsistent that it's often hard to keep up with your logical gymnastics.

And it's fun watching you try to reply with nothing but bluster, in an increasingly futile effort to retain some claim to validity despite your total inability to prove your points.

Quote by: Dirty Name See above for my reasons for ignoring you on ocassion.

Right, your argument was weak. I knew that. Just wanted you to admit it.

Quote by: Dirty Name Again, I point to welfare programs, food stamps, unemployment benefits and other government subsidies - yes, even marriage. If they don't benefit society at large, why do we bother?

Sort of a different question, don't you think? And since the people that use those monies are the ones we are trying to keep from being a future drain on society, not really a relevant question. Do we give those benefits in the hopes that they will keep the children of the recipients from being trouble?

Quote by: Dirty Name Mark it down as a Red Letter Day for CoffeeSaint. I finally validated his existence on Volconvo.

Thank you for responding.

[fushigi]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe Homosexuality is different than being black, and the comparison is apples and oranges. Homosexuals were not forced to come here on boats, and work for people they didn't know.

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe What does that have to do with slavery? Slavery was a gazillion times harder than being gay and wanting to get married. I know blacks that are offended by this comparison.

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe Are you gay? I'm not getting what you're talking about.:eek:

Maybe I should ask YOU to clarify. You say that slavery was "harder than being gay" and that, therefore, comparisons between miscegenation and gay marriage are invalid.

Your point is--correct me if I'm wrong--that blacks deserve the right to marry whites because their ancestors faced many difficulties in slavery.

Is that correct?

[Dirty Name]

Because if the only people we are concerned with helping is the parents, then it follows that we should also give money to homosexuals so they will not become greater burdens on society themselves -- which, I hope you'll note, is my argument.

The people I contend deserve special consideration are POTENTIAL parents. POTENTIAL POTENTIAL POTENTIAL POTENTIAL POTENTIAL POTENTIAL POTENTIAL - parents.

Get that through your skull and you're a long way toward understanding the concept. The REASON they deserve special consideration is because society has a need for children - but only those who are unlikely to become burdens on society themselves.

The best - and least intrusive method for ensuring that the highest percentage of children do not become wards of the state is to ensure they are raised in a stable environment - generally speaking the most commonly successful arrangement is a nuclear family with a mother and father.

When it comes to homosexuals, the state / society has no reason to encourage their unions because their is no benefit. While they are free to "get married" in practice, they don't receive the same benefits.

To the extent that gay couples acquire children, the state's interest in the welfare of those children is served in other ways.

[Dirty Name]

Because my research into this issue, while not extensive by any means, has shown some evidence that marriage tends to make people more settled, more reliable, and more productive -- and I think that is a good thing.

Conversely, your research could indicate that people who are reliable, more settled, and more productive - tend to get married.

Your argument is that the CHILDREN of those who take these financial benefits are also less likely to become burdens on society, and yes, I'd like to see some proof of that. Nothing overly dramatic; maybe just some statistics that show that, since the government began subsidizing married couples, the rate of "bad" children from married couples has decreased compared to the rate of "bad" children from unmarried couples. Have you got that? Of course, we'll also have to consider the influence of other factors -- but if the number of "bad" kids from married couples has gone down since the government started giving out marriage benefits, at least that's a place to start.

You can research the stats you seek just as easily as I can. But just because I don't provide every absurd and irrelevant statistic you seek doesn't make my argument any less valid. It's a logical argument, not a statistical one. Nevertheless, I strongly encourage you to seek the stats you ask for, because I firmly believe they will support my argument. I just don't have time to surf the internet in search of every stat you want.

And for you to prove that homosexual couples don't have the right to claim marriage benefits, you need to prove that the couples are in fact different -- because the heterosexual couples put the money to one specific use: improving the chances for their kids to grow up to be productive citizens.

OK - you have it half right - that I need to demonstrate that the couples are in fact different in terms of the challenges they face and the needs they have, and I think that is well established by the simple fact that pregnancy and childbirth can NEVER, EVER be experienced within the strict confines of a same-sex relationship.

That leaves the ridiculous assertion that it's necessary to track the actual dollar for dollar expenditures of married couples to show they are being spent in the areas that YOU deem appropriate for childrearing.

I content that it's best to let individual couples make those decisions for themselves.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Fangrim Oh almighty Russian comrade; and Coffeesaint as well, I think. You overstep the very issue we are debating. I have repeatedly accepted and supported equal access to the same right, without arbitrary discrimination. I do not support redefining that right so that additional groups of people may abuse the equal protection clause and bastardize government regulation of rights in general. Your comparison of gay marriage to black equality does not hold because it does not distuingish between equal access to a particular right, and the institution of a different right altogether. For example, giving blacks the right to vote gave them equal access to that right without redefining what that right was, and is a suitable extension of the equal protection clause, part of the 14th Amendment which protected blacks' right to vote. Giving gays the right to marry, however, constitutes a redefinition of the right of marriage. It would not be "giving equal access" of the right to marriage to homosexuals. It would be redefining marriage in a way that homosexuals would prefer. As it stands, homosexuals do have the right to marry: just not people of the same sex. Even a gay man can marry a lesbian woman, and thus homosexuals do have the individual right to marriage, and garner any of the benefits that come with that marriage. They simply do not have the right to marry a person of their choosing that is outside the very parameters of that right: the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Appealing to the equal protection clause in this debate is a bastardization of equal protection and the rights that it protects because gay marriage seeks to fundamentally undermine rights themselves. We should give equal protection of the laws, yes, but that equal protection, of course, only protects rights as they are; it does not change rights. Simply because I want to own a nuclear missile does not change regulation of the right to bear arms; I cannot appeal to the equal protection clause because I already am given equal protection of the law and equal access to my right to bear arms within the restrictions and regulations of the United States. This regulation is not unconstitutional simply because it does not allow me to bear the particular arm that I wish, or because it doesn't allow me to bear arms in any particular way; I still have that right, and my rights are still protected, because I do not have the right to bear my favorite weapon in the whole wide world because nuclear missiles, or laser and gatling guns, or chemical gases, are "awesome." I don't have the right to marry a loved one, or a loved ostrich, or a loved tomato plant named Toby, or a loved rock. I have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, just like everyone else in this country, even homosexuals.

That was a really fine post. Thank you!

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Hmm Hmm... there's something vaguely subjective about the term "sick."

Humans tend to be emotional. Wanting to marry Mom isn't something people should want to do. If they do, they probably have a few screws loose. Come on, how many times did your Mom get totally on your nerves, and then you want to marry her. We do have to keep some of the truly nutty folks under control, and there are a lot of them in a population of 300 million.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Dirty Name The people I contend deserve special consideration are POTENTIAL parents. POTENTIAL POTENTIAL POTENTIAL POTENTIAL POTENTIAL POTENTIAL POTENTIAL - parents.

Right. Because potential parents have CHILDREN CHILDREN CHILDREN CHILDREN CHILDREN CHILDREN CHILDREN CHILDREN CHILDREN CHILDREN CHILDREN CHILDREN hey, typing the same thing over and over again is fun! CHILDREN CHILDREN CHILDREN CHILDREN CHILDREN CHILDREN.

So the purpose of the marriage benefits is to provide a more stable home for those children. Now prove to me that my money is being used the way you claim it is.

Quote by: Dirty Name Get that through your skull and you're a long way toward understanding the concept. The REASON they deserve special consideration is because society has a need for children - but only those who are unlikely to become burdens on society themselves.

Stop trying to bully me by implying I'm stupid and you'll go a long way toward earning some respect.

If you read what I posted, you would know that I am asking you for proof that marriage benefits given to potential parents actually do something to make it less likely that children will become burdens on society. Since you are replying as though I didn't even mention children, I will assume you didn't read what I posted, but are simply saying the same tired things you have said over and over again.

Quote by: Dirty Name The best - and least intrusive method for ensuring that the highest percentage of children do not become wards of the state is to ensure they are raised in a stable environment - generally speaking the most commonly successful arrangement is a nuclear family with a mother and father.

Prove that giving a couple of grand to a married couple does that.

Quote by: Dirty Name When it comes to homosexuals, the state / society has no reason to encourage their unions because their is no benefit. While they are free to "get married" in practice, they don't receive the same benefits. To the extent that gay couples acquire children, the state's interest in the welfare of those children is served in other ways.

Yada yada yada. Give me proof, or admit that you have none.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Dirty Name Conversely, your research could indicate that people who are reliable, more settled, and more productive - tend to get married.

Right, which is why I'm not arguing based on those stats. See, that was why I was offering you the choice: would you prefer to give money to all couples, in the hopes that the statistics do in fact imply that marriage is the cause and settled people are the effect? Or would you rather end the marriage benefits because the reverse is true, and thus our tax dollars are being wasted? You didn't want the choice, so I picked. If you now want to choose the other way, no problem. We'll kill marriage benefits for everyone.

Quote by: Dirty Name You can research the stats you seek just as easily as I can. But just because I don't provide every absurd and irrelevant statistic you seek doesn't make my argument any less valid. It's a logical argument, not a statistical one. Nevertheless, I strongly encourage you to seek the stats you ask for, because I firmly believe they will support my argument. I just don't have time to surf the internet in search of every stat you want.

So you can't prove your argument. Thanks, that's all I wanted to hear.

As for the logic of your argument, I question it. You question whether marriage creates stable couples? I question whether giving a few thousand dollars to a married couple helps make their kids more stable and productive. From what I have seen, level of parental education is actually more influential on their children's chances of success than is money at the level you are talking about. Sure, middle class parents tend to have more stable households than families below the poverty line, but married couples don't get that much, do they? I don't see a minor tax break as causative, so my money is being wasted. I would prefer it be spent on mandatory education for parents; now that would have a more appreciable and measurable effect on children. Why aren't you arguing for that, with your great concern for the children's future?

Quote by: Dirty Name OK - you have it half right -

Ooo, does that mean I get half credit? Sweet!
Answer the challenge as I stated it, not as you wish it had been stated.

Quote by: Dirty Name that I need to demonstrate that the couples are in fact different in terms of the challenges they face and the needs they have, and I think that is well established by the simple fact that pregnancy and childbirth can NEVER, EVER be experienced within the strict confines of a same-sex relationship.

Prove that the kids are affected by any of this.

Quote by: Dirty Name That leaves the ridiculous assertion that it's necessary to track the actual dollar for dollar expenditures of married couples to show they are being spent in the areas that YOU deem appropriate for childrearing. I content that it's best to let individual couples make those decisions for themselves.

No, it's necessary that you prove results. We can talk about how those results are achieved after you do so. But if the program doesn't even create the results it is supposed to, then it is a failure and should be eliminated. Which would end the government's recognition and subsidization of marriage, and that's fine with me.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Fangrim . . . and Coffeesaint as well, I think. Giving gays the right to marry, however, constitutes a redefinition of the right of marriage. It would not be "giving equal access" of the right to marriage to homosexuals. It would be redefining marriage in a way that homosexuals would prefer. As it stands, homosexuals do have the right to marry: just not people of the same sex. Even a gay man can marry a lesbian woman, and thus homosexuals do have the individual right to marriage, and garner any of the benefits that come with that marriage. They simply do not have the right to marry a person of their choosing that is outside the very parameters of that right: the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Appealing to the equal protection clause in this debate is a bastardization of equal protection and the rights that it protects because gay marriage seeks to fundamentally undermine rights themselves. We should give equal protection of the laws, yes, but that equal protection, of course, only protects rights as they are; it does not change rights. Simply because I want to own a nuclear missile does not change regulation of the right to bear arms; I cannot appeal to the equal protection clause because I already am given equal protection of the law and equal access to my right to bear arms within the restrictions and regulations of the United States. This regulation is not unconstitutional simply because it does not allow me to bear the particular arm that I wish, or because it doesn't allow me to bear arms in any particular way; I still have that right, and my rights are still protected, because I do not have the right to bear my favorite weapon in the whole wide world because nuclear missiles, or laser and gatling guns, or chemical gases, are "awesome." I don't have the right to marry a loved one, or a loved ostrich, or a loved tomato plant named Toby, or a loved rock. I have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, just like everyone else in this country, even homosexuals.

Interesting point; sorry I didn't understand it completely before. I see what you mean.

Now I ask you: why is the right to marry defined as the right to marry someone of the opposite sex? And is that actually spelled out in the law anywhere, or is it simply assumed as tradition? Because I would support a redefinition of the right to marry to include homosexuals, by taking out the idea of gender and simply allowing marriage to be a contract between two consenting adults. I don't have a particular problem with incest, but if people insist, I'd be fine with having it as two consenting non-related adults. Is there a reason why this is a bad idea?

[Hmm]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe Humans tend to be emotional. Wanting to marry Mom isn't something people should want to do. If they do, they probably have a few screws loose. Come on, how many times did your Mom get totally on your nerves, and then you want to marry her. We do have to keep some of the truly nutty folks under control, and there are a lot of them in a population of 300 million.

Personally, I do not want to marry my mother.

However, other people may wish to marry their mothers. Who am I, or you, to tell them that they are not allowed to do so?

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Interesting point; sorry I didn't understand it completely before. I see what you mean. Now I ask you: why is the right to marry defined as the right to marry someone of the opposite sex? And is that actually spelled out in the law anywhere, or is it simply assumed as tradition? Because I would support a redefinition of the right to marry to include homosexuals, by taking out the idea of gender and simply allowing marriage to be a contract between two consenting adults. I don't have a particular problem with incest, but if people insist, I'd be fine with having it as two consenting non-related adults. Is there a reason why this is a bad idea?

There are certain genetic problems involved with reletives producing offspring.

Having said that, there is no reason beyond the obvious religious ones why same sex couples should not be allowed to marry.

It's all about "we don't approve of them so we don't want them being happy".

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Mozart1220 There are certain genetic problems involved with reletives producing offspring. Having said that, there is no reason beyond the obvious religious ones why same sex couples should not be allowed to marry. It's all about "we don't approve of them so we don't want them being happy".

There are certain genetic problems with lots of people producing offspring; look at the number of people that are born with genetic defects. Unless we are going to start requiring people take some kind of genetic compatibility test before permitting marriage, I don't believe there is any reason to single out incest as particularly dangerous to offspring.

It's nasty, sure -- but I think Catherine Zeta-Jones marrying Michael Douglas is kind of nasty, and I think Anna Nicole Smith's marriage was REALLY nasty. These things are not for us to decide.

As for same-sex couples, I agree with your perception of the argument against it. Many people oppose gay marriage simply because they disapprove of other people's life choices.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Hmm Personally, I do not want to marry my mother. However, other people may wish to marry their mothers. Who am I, or you, to tell them that they are not allowed to do so?

You may choose not to interfere with such behavior and that would be your choice, wouldn't seem to be a natural reaction though. :)

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint As for same-sex couples, I agree with your perception of the argument against it. Many people oppose gay marriage simply because they disapprove of other people's life choices.

Isn't that human nature though? Otherwise we'd all be zombies.:eek:

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint There are certain genetic problems with lots of people producing offspring; look at the number of people that are born with genetic defects. Unless we are going to start requiring people take some kind of genetic compatibility test before permitting marriage, I don't believe there is any reason to single out incest as particularly dangerous to offspring. It's nasty, sure -- but I think Catherine Zeta-Jones marrying Michael Douglas is kind of nasty, and I think Anna Nicole Smith's marriage was REALLY nasty. These things are not for us to decide. As for same-sex couples, I agree with your perception of the argument against it. Many people oppose gay marriage simply because they disapprove of other people's life choices.

Assuming that being gay IS a choice, which it isn't.

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe Isn't that human nature though? Otherwise we'd all be zombies.:eek:

I don't think being Gay is a choice, but predjudice IS. You may dissaprove of some kinds of behavior, but unless you can demonstrate and prove tangibal HARM, I don't think we get to pass laws against it.

For certain we can't deny certain people righs and privilages taken for granted by others on the basis of some ancient text based on myth and legend.