Homosexual Marriage

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Dirty Name Are you getting the point yet? POTENTIAL. It's all about POTENTIAL, because people make life-changing decisions based only on the potential to procreate, and sometimes on procreation itself that occurs by surprise. Both are scenarios gay couples NEVER HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT.

It's not about potential, it's about an absolute, getting regular sex. (smiley)

Gays can and do have natural kids, not together, but within a hetero relationship. What's the difference? The world is changing, and you can't live in the past. What was, was and what is, is. That is the cold hard fact.

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: Gela In todays society, marraige isn't about kids at all. Kids are so frequently born out of marraige, its pointless to say that it is. Under that logic I say a) There is no point whatsoever stopping siblings from marrying - if they want babies, they will have them with or without marraige.

OK, now that we've established that you, Gela, are in favor of "anything goes" marriage, tell me - what is the point of providing legal and financial benefits to people just because they demand them?

Why would we want to offer incentives for brothers and sisters, college roommates, and my aunt and grandmother to marry? Why would we, as a society, want to hand out all sorts of benefits to people who clearly would only be taking advantage of the system?

You would have college dorm-mates getting "married" just so they can file their taxes under the married rate, collect health benefits under a family plan, and spinster daughters "marrying" their mothers in their golden years to take advantage of social security survivor benefits.

Why would you allow this? It makes no sense.

[Dirty Name]

Gays can and do have natural kids, not together, but within a hetero relationship.

Exactly. In a hetero relationship... And why would our society want to offer incentives for this sort of behavior?

[yourmaster]

Quote by: Dirty Name Nonsense. Without potential (or actual) procreation, what is the point of a lifelong legal partnership between two people? Can someone please explain that to me? Why would it be necessary to form lifelong legal partnerships between couples if there is ZERO chance they will reproduce? Do tell.

What is the point? Because they fell in love, why would you want to spend the rest of your life with someone? Because you love them, I don't think Ive ever heard such a ridiculous arguement against homosexual marriage.

[Maryjane]

Dirty name: Where do you read that in my argument? I didn't ask about a "lifelong loving relationship." I asked about a lifelong LEGAL partnership.

Based on your reply, allow me to rephrase the question. I'd appreciate you not skirting the issue as you did before. Did you or did you not enter a "life long legal agreement" with your wife based on her ability to procreate? Is that the reason she married you? Would either of you divorce if your legal union could not produce children?

Did you or your wife include any sacred vows, before the eyes of god, about the conception or production of children in your "life long" matrimonial bond? When you signed your marriage license, you remember that binding legal contract, was there any clause about the conception or production of children during the course of your marriage?

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: Gela Basicly, all im hearing is - its too hard to make this law consistant, so we shouldn't do it.

If you want to argue in favor of doing it, be my guest. Somehow, I think you're trying to take an exception and turn it into a rule that would require government intrusion into medical records to determine fertility.

The point is, our system works just fine now. Our government does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation when it comes to marriage benefits - everyone operates under the same set of rules. You just don't like the outcome when the rules are applied.

And before you bring up mixed-race marriages, do keep in mind the underlying reason that such marriages were shamefully banned was to prevent racial mixing, which is based solely on prejudice and racial discrimination.

Under my argument, the underlying reason for banning same-sex marriages has nothing to do with sexual orientation - and everything to do with the potential for procreation. Compared to hetero relationships, same-sex relationships have significantly less impact on society at large, and thus do not qualify for benefits that are intended to promote long-term sexual relationships.

For example, a homosexual relationship has ZERO imact on me or my family. But a heterosexual relationship has the potential to have an impact - social welfare taxes, school levies, juvenile crime, etc.

So there is no reason for our government/society to promote long-term gay relationships. If they happen, that's great (for the happy couple). But there are very good reasons to promote long term heterosexual relationships.

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: MaryJane Did you or did you not enter a "life long legal agreement" with your wife based on her ability to procreate? Is that the reason she married you? Would either of you divorce if your legal union could not produce children? Did you or your wife include any sacred vows, before the eyes of god, about the conception or production of children in your "life long" matrimonial bond? When you signed your marriage license, you remember that binding legal contract, was there any clause about the conception or production of children during the course of your marriage?

No. So what? It doesn't change the fact that we have the potential, whether it was discussed ahead of time or not.

I know, I know. You're going to say, "See? There's no mention of procreation in a marriage ceremony, so your argument is invalid."

That's brilliant. But I don't see how it changes my argument. That's what I'm doing here - providing a "secular case against gay marriage."

I'm giving you reasons why gay marriage should not be legal. I don't pretend to tell you that's WHY it's not legal now, I'm just giving you an argument in favor of keeping the status quo.

[Maryjane]

You would have college dorm-mates getting "married" just so they can file their taxes under the married rate, collect health benefits under a family plan, and spinster daughters "marrying" their mothers in their golden years to take advantage of social security survivor benefits.

You are aware there are widow/ers that do not "legally marry" so they can continue to collect their deceased spouses social security benefits?

[Maryjane]

Well thank you for finally answering my question. I hope you see how ridiculious your argument is now that we've determined people marry for LOVE and not to procreate. I knew you had it in you.

I'm just giving you an argument in favor of keeping the status quo.

Oh, I see. Statis quo...
Like slavery, denying women's rights...gotcha.

[Morality Games]

Under my argument, the underlying reason for banning same-sex marriages has nothing to do with sexual orientation - and everything to do with the potential for procreation. Compared to hetero relationships, same-sex relationships have significantly less impact on society at large, and thus do not qualify for benefits that are intended to promote long-term sexual relationships. For example, a homosexual relationship has ZERO imact on me or my family. But a heterosexual relationship has the potential to have an impact - social welfare taxes, school levies, juvenile crime, etc. So there is no reason for our government/society to promote long-term gay relationships. If they happen, that's great (for the happy couple). But there are very good reasons to promote long term heterosexual relationships.

One of the principles behind democratic societies (and it is a good principle) is that you can't regulate behavior at all unless you can demonstrate it is somehow unfair, in which case you regulate it however much is necessary to alleviate the unfairness, or, if it is too pivotal to how things work within society, shrink the unfairness to the smallest degree possible (it is not possible to get rid of unfairness entirely, as the world is built not to be fair, but democracy never stops trying and can help many more people live quality lives through the struggle than if they were ruled by a tyranny).

Telling people they can't marry (and this in spite of loving each other) because they can't produce children is unfair.

Additionally, and less importantly, homosexual couples adopt at high ratios and will frequently adopt sickly or mentally handicapped children which heterosexual couples overlook (out of a desire for a more typical family life). They can simulate heterosexual families closely enough to provide the same service to society, killing your argument (although your argument was already fallacious to begin with because it was unfair -- I actually don't have to contradict it).

And, if you are thinking of saying being with homosexual parents makes kids go gay (and thus endangers procreation), homosexuals have been adopting children for decades and there is no indication they churn out homosexual kids at a rate higher than heterosexual parents.

That's what I'm doing here - providing a "secular case against gay marriage."

Yes, and a senseless one. A democratic society makes plans based on what people are probably going to do and can encourage people to do one thing or another if it will benefit the community, but it cannot deny them the right to do something (and that includes not providing a process for it if such a process exists for other people, as is the case with heterosexual marriage) which doesn't harm other people (because it is unfair).

And before ask:

Fairness is a sense (quite like a sense of balance, in that they are both chemical processes in the brain that help people get their bearings in various circumstances) that applies to situations in which a person feels like involved parties were treated as they deserved -- it can be accompanied by all sorts of emotions, like 'happiness' or 'amusement' when satisfied or 'outrage' and 'resentment' when unsatisfied (in the same vein, a sense of balance can be accompanied by confidence when satisfied and alarm when unsatisifed, like when you are about to trip and fall down the stairs)

People's senses depend very much on their perceptions, and people can perceive things are unfair irrationally (on basis of fiction or improbability instead of fact and probability), but while people are allowed to hold such notions of fairness, they are not allowed to practice any variety of justice based on them (hence, their views of fairness play no part in the political process aside from being identified for what they are and dismissed outright).

[Maryjane]

That's brilliant. But I don't see how it changes my argument. That's what I'm doing here - providing a "secular case against gay marriage."

You have no argument, just selfish reasons for denying homosexuals their right to be just as miserable as 50% of the heterosexual are in their marriages.

But there are very good reasons to promote long term heterosexual relationships.

And that's the problem. If heterosexuals want long term marriages who is stopping them? It's not the homosexuals. Do us all a favor and worry about fixing heterosexual marriages before you even begin to worry about homosexuals and their relationships. Why don't you start with enforcing your wedding vows, the ones you spoke before the eyes of god? Love, honor, cherish...till death do you part? I still love, honor and cherish and he's been dead 4 years. 50% of heterosexuals don't take their vows seriously. We won't even go into the ones that stay married "for the kids" or so they can get a tax break, yet you want to pick on homosexuals fighting for the right to say those very same vows.

That plank in your eye doesn't get in your way much does it?

[ShadowFox]

I'll state the following comment, Dirty, and i want you to read the entire thing, ok.

Should a heterosexual couple be able to marry if one of the members of that couple is infertile, meaning it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to have a child with their genetic material?


Also, heres another argument you can't overlook.
Marriage is a contract, and denying two men or two women to have this contract is discrimination against one of the two based on sex. Since the government defends against this form of discrimination, it therefore should protect gay marriage. Do you understand?

[Jack]

Could we please, in accordance with the forum rules, direct the debate away from other members and toward only the topic at hand?
Thanks.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[Tycoon]

Why is it that as soon as I leave everybody posts?

They have the potential, and that's all that matters. They can change their mind, have an unexpected pregnancy, etc., and those events radically effect the heterosexual relationship in ways that same-sex partners never have to concern themselves with.

As I have already said, homosexual couples can have children though various other methods. So they can't have unplanned pregnancies, big deal. In a way that's better because they won't resent any of their children.

Same-sex relationships are just as real as heterosexual relationships. There is love, anger, sadness, hapiness, every emotion that you could list. There is no reason to expect that the relationships are any different.

Also, you cannot simply continue to say that the "potential for procreation" matters at all, because you have no reasoning to back that statement. I think I saw you post something about "status quo"? I don't have the time to read everything, but allowing gays to marry would only increase the percentage of gay parents.

You don't back your false claims with anything at all. Maybe you think you don't need to? Not backing them up with facts or logic makes this discrimination and you a bigot.

I don't intend to waste my time arguing with anybody that low.

[nerdvincent]

There is already too much humans, so "able to procreate" arguments are worthless. Gay can just adopt.

[yourmaster]

Quote by: nerdvincent There is already too much humans, so "able to procreate" arguments are worthless. Gay can just adopt.

There are inded too many humans in the world, a parcentage of people that do no procreate, or have a lower rate of procreation, can only really be beneficial.

Second of all you cannot single out homosexuals as the only people that in your eyes would be in an " unnecessary" marriage, either because they are unable or unwilling to procreate or that they are in the marriage for financial benefit, singling out homosexuals and denying them the right to marry when many heterosexual marriages have the same problem is discrimination no matter how you like to label it.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Dirty Name Exactly. In a hetero relationship... And why would our society want to offer incentives for this sort of behavior?

See that's it, it's about the behavior to you, which is really what I used to think as well, you can't get around the behavior as part of the reason you are against gay marriage.

To me, and this is just a viewpoint, marriage has always been about committment, first and foremost. I don't believe the government cares one way or another about future children, if it did there would have been all sorts of little clauses here and there to nullify marriages, or not allow them when the participants got too old, or after a few years when no kids turned up. To me, the government would be interested in why it was giving these people certain breaks that single people don't get. Out of fairness you have to see this point. It's an advantage and heteros do do it, take advantage, even when they aren't all that committed to each other. Been going on forever.

You might say, well why let another group in that will take advantage of the system. To me everything has it's risks, but out of fairness, gays have a right to make a committment, if it falters, they get divorced, just like heteros. A whole lot of gays probably won't marry, they'll just cohabitate like heteros do, and then move on if they feel the need. Not everyone wants to make a committment that involves property that can be lost.

[Compugasm]

Quote by: Dirty Name So there is no reason for our government/society to promote long-term gay relationships....But there are very good reasons to promote long term heterosexual relationships.

The implication is to discriminate against it. How many marriages? Around 1 million guestimate maybe? I'd be willing to bet that a good 75% of us in this debate, clearly understand what you mean by "potential". However, it's simply been discounted innumerable ways. Sex changes, fertility options, other marriage arrangements, alternative family units. A family is still a family, no matter how it is structured.

Quote by: Dirty Name Why would we want to offer incentives for brothers and sisters, college roommates, and my aunt and grandmother to marry? Why would we, as a society, want to hand out all sorts of benefits to people who clearly would only be taking advantage of the system?

There are so many questionable benefits one could qualify for based on race, income level, or gender... well that's off topic. If it has almost no impact, what difference does it make if two college burger flippers file jointly? Is everyone going to flood Las Vegas and marry their pets or grandparents? If any of your examples wanted benefits of marriage, there'd be business like eHarmony that matched people up specifically for the purpose of collecting the benefits they wanted. Yet this isn't the case. What are you afraid of?

[JaneDoe321]

Quote by: Maryjane Based on your reply, allow me to rephrase the question. I'd appreciate you not skirting the issue as you did before. Did you or did you not enter a "life long legal agreement" with your wife based on her ability to procreate? Is that the reason she married you? Would either of you divorce if your legal union could not produce children? Did you or your wife include any sacred vows, before the eyes of god, about the conception or production of children in your "life long" matrimonial bond? When you signed your marriage license, you remember that binding legal contract, was there any clause about the conception or production of children during the course of your marriage?

I'm always a bit perplexed about the whole "marriage between heterosexuals allow for the possibility of children" when so many cuples choose to remain childless and sho many couples are childless due to infertility. That doesn't make *their* relationships any less valid, meaningful, etc. It just makes it biological-childless. *shrug*

[Chris]

A relevant Lewis Black comedy bit about Gay Marriage.

Language warning harsh language