Homosexual Marriage

[Starboy]

Quote by: mr.perfecto :confused: If you mean SS doesn't provide survivor benefits to unmarried people, what is the problem? Boyfriends and girlfriends can't leave benefits to one another either.

I agree you are confused. It was pointed out that some companies like Wal-Mart do extend benefits to homosexual couples. I was pointing out that a very big source of benefits in this country to families is Social Security and that homosexual couples do not get it.

Also in some states they have what is called domestic partnerships. This is where a boy friend and a girl friend can get benefits from the company they work for if that state has laws on the books requiring such. Such laws designed to provide such benefits to homosexual families are at least on the books for Massachusetts and California. It is funny that the Christian right has said nothing about these laws and marriage. Many people in these states, rather than getting married are just applying under domestic partnership laws. Since marriage is now legal in Massachusetts, at least for now, the legislature is looking at striking down the domestic partner laws because it weakens the institution of marriage. They are saying that if you want the rights of marriage then you should be married. And since homosexuals can now get married in Massachusetts there is no more need for domestic partner laws in that state. It is funny how recognizing a family in all cases strengthens an institution instead of making it weaker. Those that think that not giving homosexuals their rights are doing more damage to their precious institution of marriage by being bigots. By denying those rights to other groups all they are doing is forcing legislation that goes around marriage so that the dispossessed group will get some kind of fair treatment. This talk of civil unions or some other kind of laws for same sex families just makes marriage a weaker institution. If you are actully concerned for the insitution then let gays get married in the courthouse.

But, leaving that aside, you think it is the benefits that cause most people to get married?

People get married for all sorts of reasons, most of them for stupid reasons. The reason that the divorce rate is high has nothing to do with gay marriage. In fact my bet is that gays will reduce the rate by a very small percentage. Quite frankly the problem with marriage today is not the law. It is the social expectations of the partners in the relationship. The way people end up getting married is almost completely disconnected from the needs of society. When people get married purely for love is when society gets screwed. The kind of love that usually leads people to marry doesn’t last a lifetime. In societies where the marriage is arranged, the divorce rate is much lower. The reason is simple. These marriages are not made for entirely selfish reasons and any love that does develop will only be a plus to the relationship. Also since entire families have a vested interest in the chosen partners they are more likely to support the relationships rather then what is so common, sabotage them.

Starboy

[mr.perfecto]

Well, I don't think I'm confuse at all. I think you've pretty much summed up the difference between a male-female couple and a homosexual couple: you take away the benefits and the homosexual couple would have no need to get married.

Face it, there is no unconstitutional discrimination going on. If a court ruled it to be that way, all the other laws the government has on the books would have to be judged by the same standard.

Frankly, I don't think leftists realize that gay marriage is a huge Trojan horse of an issue. Affirmative action, medicaid, training programs, scholarships, etc. would be unconstitutional as well because of the restrictions place on them. Hmm, there might be something to this idea after all.

[giuliano]

of course its a trojan horse. they want equal rights to straight couples. that includes marriage, but also other rights such as those you mentioned.

whether it's a trojan horse or not is irrelevant. either you agree they are equal, or you don't. if you do, they should get all the same rights as straight couples.

[mr.perfecto]

They have the same rights as male-female couple. :)

They don't receive the same benefits.

[Starboy]

Quote by: mr.perfecto Frankly, I don't think leftists realize that gay marriage is a huge Trojan horse of an issue. Affirmative action, medicaid, training programs, scholarships, etc. would be unconstitutional as well because of the restrictions place on them. Hmm, there might be something to this idea after all.

You think I am a leftist? Mr.perfecto, you have no idea what I am. It would surprise you to find out. I think you would find that I am a one of a kind.

mr. perfecto, you appear to comprehend that the gays are being discriminated against. For some reason you think that is the way it should be. Your best argument is, 'because that is the way it is.' It is not a very good argument. It wasn't a good argument for blacks, it wasn't a good argument for women, and it’s not a good argument for gays. What people like you do not seem to comprehend is that if you value, freedom and fair treatment then giving the freedoms and fair treatment that you enjoy to everyone doesn't weaken your freedom and fairness, it only makes it stronger. People like you mr.perfecto are doing harm and you don't even know it.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: mr.perfecto They have the same rights as male-female couple. :) They don't receive the same benefits.

They don't have the same rights either.

Starboy

[mr.perfecto]

If a "right" has to be granted by the government, it isn't a right--it is a benefit. The inability to understand that is just one of the things that makes a person a leftist. I understand that gays are being "discriminated" against, but it isn't illegal and they haven't lost any rights.

Like I said, if you are employed, you aren't going to be able to collect unemployment. Discrimination? Sure it is, and there is nothing wrong with that.

[Starboy]

Quote by: mr.perfecto If a "right" has to be granted by the government, it isn't a right--it is a benefit. The inability to understand that is just one of the things that makes a person a leftist. I understand that gays are being "discriminated" against, but it isn't illegal and they haven't lost any rights.

So the right to bear arms is a benifit?

Like I said, if you are employed, you aren't going to be able to collect unemployment. Discrimination? Sure it is, and there is nothing wrong with that.

So are you saying that gay people should not get unemployment?

Starboy

[mr.perfecto]

No, gays shouldn't receive unemployment. Neither should anyone else.

The right to bear arms is a right that is assumed to exist before a government is formed.

[Starboy]

Quote by: mr.perfecto No, gays shouldn't receive unemployment. Neither should anyone else.

So are you saying that government shouldn't be in the marriage benifits business either?

The right to bear arms is a right that is assumed to exist before a government is formed.

Then why do you suppose the right to bear arms is in the constitution? And do you think that gays should be allowed to have fire arms?

Starboy

[mr.perfecto]

Not being a leftist, I don't think the government should be granting benefits for marriage, however, based on current interpretations of the Constitution, the government doing so is legal.

If you think of the history of the founding of this nation and you notice the language of the Constitution, the rights in the Bill of Rights were considered rights before the government was even established. The BoR was included because some of the founders made the keen observation that it is the nature of government to revoke rights rather than grant them.

[Starboy]

Quote by: mr.perfecto Not being a leftist, I don't think the government should be granting benefits for marriage, however, based on current interpretations of the Constitution, the government doing so is legal.

Mr.perfecto, for you this is progress.

If you think of the history of the founding of this nation and you notice the language of the Constitution, the rights in the Bill of Rights were considered rights before the government was even established. The BoR was included because some of the founders made the keen observation that it is the nature of government to revoke rights rather than grant them.

I understand that. But like any contract between people, it should be written down so that everyone will remember as to what they have agreed to. There has to be some kind of government.

Starboy

[mr.perfecto]

Okay, we agree on somethings. I should upgrade my opinion of you from leftists to left-leaning libertarian.

Now all we have to do is establish that these counterfeit marriages are attacks on the family and that (libertarian types should agree whole-heartedly with this) supporting marriage benefits for people who don't even need them is counterproductive.

[Starboy]

Quote by: mr.perfecto Okay, we agree on somethings. I should upgrade my opinion of you from leftists to left-leaning libertarian.

I am an independent. I am a registered republican. I voted for Nixon and Reagan. But I spit on the current Republican Party. But hey, if you want to think that everyone that disagrees with you is a liberal, then no problem. Then you won't mind if I think that your disagreements with me make you a knuckle dragging moron.

Now all we have to do is establish that these counterfeit marriages are attacks on the family and that (libertarian types should agree whole-heartedly with this) supporting marriage benefits for people who don't even need them is counterproductive.

What counterfeit marriages? Are you talking about domestic partners? Hey I thought you said that you didn't want the government to give anyone any benefits?

Starboy

[dolzaina]

Quote by: crayola Black/white marriages, "unions" if you will, are still considered "abnormal" or should I say "frowned upon" by the racist whites. Same-sex unions is just to much for some people to handle.

It was the same for blacks and women trying to get the vote during the reconstruction. They caved in and gave black men the right, but for women to vote was "just to much" for conservative men to handle.

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: Starboy What counterfeit marriages? Are you talking about domestic partners? Hey I thought you said that you didn't want the government to give anyone any benefits? Starboy

I don't. I haven't contradicted that statement, have I?

However, if you take away all of the benefits that married people are supposed to receive, one man-one woman relationships will still need marriage while other types won't. A man and a woman do not get married (for the most part) to play legal games with the government. They do it as a part of responsible family planning.

[atheist]

Quote by: mr.perfecto A man and a woman do not get married (for the most part) to play legal games with the government. They do it as a part of responsible family planning.

Apply that last sentence to a .05 to 1 ratio of "married" (as in "are" and "once was"!!!) couples. :)

[Starboy]

Quote by: mr.perfecto I don't. I haven't contradicted that statement, have I? However, if you take away all of the benefits that married people are supposed to receive, one man-one woman relationships will still need marriage while other types won't. A man and a woman do not get married (for the most part) to play legal games with the government. They do it as a part of responsible family planning.

Wait a second! Since when in your opinion did marriage have anything to do with family? Why do one man-one woman relationships need marriage? And what does the government have to do with it? And why would you care if a man and a woman played legal games with the government?

Starboy

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: Starboy Wait a second! Since when in your opinion did marriage have anything to do with family? Why do one man-one woman relationships need marriage? And what does the government have to do with it? And why would you care if a man and a woman played legal games with the government? Starboy

What does the government have to marriage? Nothing besides divorce--which is how the government got into the marriage business in the first place. I don't care if people get married to play legal games with the government. My point was that most people get married because of the nature of the relationship with their spouse and the rights they want with respect to the family they will create, not the benefits they get from the government. You take away those government benefits, what reason would a same-sex couple have for getting married? Male-female couples would still have to define their financial and sexual relationship because of the family they will create.

[Starboy]

Quote by: mr.perfecto What does the government have to marriage? Nothing besides divorce--which is how the government got into the marriage business in the first place.

So you are saying that the government made laws about divorce first and then made marriage law? Sounds like you have the cart before the horse.

[quote]I don't care if people get married to play legal games with the government. My point was that most people get married because of the nature of the relationship with their spouse and the rights they want with respect to the family they will create, not the benefits they get from the government.[quote]

When you say "the family they will create" are you saying that after they are married but before they have children they are not a family?

You take away those government benefits, what reason would a same-sex couple have for getting married? Male-female couples would still have to define their financial and sexual relationship because of the family they will create.

You seem to think that two people cannot be a family unless they have children. Is this so? Also you seem to think that the government should be giving benefits to people who decide to have children? Isn't that their business? Why should anyone pay for it?

Starboy