Homosexual Marriage

[Tycoon]

Look, your entire argument right now hinges on "potential for procreation". It's pathetic, and it's disproven. I'm not going to waste my time arguing agaisnt the same point over and over again, so come up with something new.

[Tycoon]

FACT: Heterosexual couples must make family planning decisions. FACT: Same-sex couples need not concern themselves with such things.

Hahahaha! That is just hilarious.

I'm sorry, but I have to ask. Is this what you look like?

[SoylentGreen]

Dirty Name Prove it. I gave you a link to my argument

No, do your own work it's easy enough just click on a few other pages

No, genius. It has nothing to do with deceit at all. It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that nobody is going ask the question in the first place.

Nobody has to ask the question, it's still deceit whether anybody asks or not.

You make the statement:

It's such a common-sense "bright line" solution. Heteros are naturally fertile, homosexuals are naturally infertile. What better place to draw the line of demarcation.

But for you it doesn't matter that a hetro might be infertile. They in your view can still deceive people about this so called bright line" solution of yours and simply just not admit that they are infertile.

again you say

What I will argue is that nobody will know,

So you draw the line of demarcation on the fact that hetro couples can lie about their fertility but gay couples can't because they are the same sex.
Nobody has to ask the hetro whether he or she is fertile when getting married, remember the so called "bright line" solution of yours.
They themselves will know they are being deceitful.

You think society benefits when single moms raise children by themselves

And you think a marriage licence is the only way to get pregnant.
Couples can still have children without a marriage licence.

What I was talking about when I mentioned privacy is Halofan's attempt to poke a hole in my argument by bringing up infertile couples.

And halo was responding to your not so common sense "bright line" solution, and quite rightly pointed out how it doesn't work.
I thought he poked quite a good hole in your argument, so no, it doesn't really help.

So, shall I put you in the "anything goes" category for marriage? Or would you discriminate against certain groups, just not gays?

There are other threads dealing with other types of marriage, feel free to make a comment on there and see what sort of response you get.

[SoylentGreen]

Dirty Name Again, homosexuals are already allowed to marry.

And it's up to YOU to tell ME why we should change the law, not the other way around.

You seem to have an ability to contradict yourself. I guess by saying that homosexuals are already allowed to marry, you do mean legally. And yet you ask the question why we should change the law?
So if you believe gay marriage is already legal then what law is it that we have to convince you should be changed?

Attempts to amend the state constitution Immediately after the Supreme Judicial Court's ruling, efforts began to overturn this decision by amending the state of Massachusetts constitution. The most recent effort to amend the state constitution to forbid same-sex marriage was defeated by the state legislature on June 14, 2007. As a result, same-sex marriage will remain legal in Massachusetts until at least 2012, barring another decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court or the United States Supreme Court on the topic or a Federal constitutional amendment banning such marriages.

Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Homosexual marriage lacks full legal recognition in all 50 states. Vermont recognizes civil unions that give homosexual couples the full benefits and responsibilities of marriage but are separate from legal marriage. Several states are dealing with this issue today, in 2006, including the state of Massachusetts

Gay Marriage, Civil Union  in USA and the world

Can you explain what it is you mean when you say homosexuals are already allowed to marry? Where exactly is that happening where it is not up for question.

If the real question is whether or not they should receive the exact same benefits as a couple with the potential for procreation, then you should try and prove that marriage is only about procreation.

The real question is and has always been should homosexuals be allowed to marry not procreate.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Tycoon Oh? Do tell me what needs these are that opposite-sex couples have.

DN is saying heteros make more sacrifices when they have children because they can have children, which to me is neither here nor there.

You have to tear apart all the marriage laws that have existed and still do state by state, because they vary. Some states have community property, some you have tenants by entirety to name a couple.

Tenants by Entirety:

A registration in which each owner has a full interest in the account. Upon the death of one owner, the account passes to the survivor. This registration is restricted to spousal accounts and is not available in all states.

Community property:

Legal treatment of the possessions of married people as belonging to both of them.

Children aren't part of this deal, and many times can get screwed if the biological parent dies and the non-biological parent survives.

Excuse me, but you seriously are a bigot. The decision to have a child is life-altering whether made by homosexual couples or heterosexual couples. And why do you assume that neither of the homosexual parents would stay home for their child?

Read this article about gays adopting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...031002031.html

I don't need to prove they are equal, you need to prove that they aren't, something you continuously fail to do.

"The Times They Are a-Changin'." Bob Dylan.

[yourmaster]

Quote by: Tycoon Look, your entire argument right now hinges on "potential for procreation". It's pathetic, and it's disproven. I'm not going to waste my time arguing agaisnt the same point over and over again, so come up with something new.

I find it quite comical how he can make such an arguement about it.
I personally am quite content that my existence refutes the theory that fecundicity is the sole evolutionary heuristic. I'm quite happy with that, he is yet to provide an arguement that lowers the need for a marriage agreement to a level so low as to deny it to us.
Homosexual lovers find the bonding of marriage just as meaningful as heterosexual couples.The lack of potential to procreate does not lower the neccessity of marriage to a point where you can justify denying them it.
Your arguement of go print a piece of paper off the internet is crap, it means nothing and is no bond between a couple, it is the legality of the contract itself that makes marriage so meaningful these days.

[Compugasm]

Quote by: yourmaster it is the legality of the contract itself that makes marriage so meaningful these days.

That's exactly the point. This "potential" argument is the same line of thinking that rationalizes slave trade, because it is legal to sell another person. It has created a new class of human beings under law because they have no potential (read: second class people). Through some twisted double-exclusion gender based nonsense, it is alright to discriminate against them because they're gay.

[adam10312]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe Tenants by Entirety: A registration in which each owner has a full interest in the account. Upon the death of one owner, the account passes to the survivor. This registration is restricted to spousal accounts and is not available in all states. Community property: Legal treatment of the possessions of married people as belonging to both of them.

So are these two benefits the definition of marriage?

These two benefits should be available to anyone who wants them. I see no reason that I cannot own property or posessions with someone else. Is this the legal benefit of marriage? If so, then this is what the debate is about. Anything outside of legal benefits is just religious rituals and name changing fun that is basically none of anyone's business.

I cannot see any reason someone would think they should restrict two guys' right to own property together.

[italiangm]

Quote by: adam10312 So are these two benefits the definition of marriage? These two benefits should be available to anyone who wants them. I see no reason that I cannot own property or posessions with someone else. Is this the legal benefit of marriage? If so, then this is what the debate is about. Anything outside of legal benefits is just religious rituals and name changing fun that is basically none of anyone's business. I cannot see any reason someone would think they should restrict two guys' right to own property together.

Let's not forget two women.

However, the issue is more than property ownership. One of the benefits conferred by marriage is the ability to pass on the decedent's assets to a spouse without taxation in most cases.

Compare this to the current situation in most states: While there are legal ways for one same sex, non-family partner to transfer assets to a same sex, non-family partner on death, the assets will be taxed. If the estate is substantial, the tax is substantial. The only potential way around this is to establish a trust, which is expensive and complicated. In comparison, married couples receive this benefit with the cost of a marriage certificate.

[adam10312]

Quote by: italiangm Let's not forget two women. However, the issue is more than property ownership. One of the benefits conferred by marriage is the ability to pass on the decedent's assets to a spouse without taxation in most cases. Compare this to the current situation in most states: While there are legal ways for one same sex, non-family partner to transfer assets to a same sex, non-family partner on death, the assets will be taxed. If the estate is substantial, the tax is substantial. The only potential way around this is to establish a trust, which is expensive and complicated. In comparison, married couples receive this benefit with the cost of a marriage certificate.

Okay then, we have found the problem. Passing on an estate has NOTHING to do with marriage. I own stuff. I die. The stuff goes wherever I want it to. End of story. The taxation of that money is a completely different issue. If I want to give it to my old friend or some guy I don't know or my wife, I should be able to. It seems like, if I own it, I have already been taxed on it, so there is no question that it shouldn't be taxed.

Anyway, that's not a marriage issue. Why should someone who participates in some religious ritual get tax benefits that everyone else doesn't? That's unfair. I am not married. If I die I should have the same rights with respect to giving out my stuff that any married person does.

[italiangm]

Quote by: adam10312 Okay then, we have found the problem. Passing on an estate has NOTHING to do with marriage. I own stuff. I die. The stuff goes wherever I want it to. End of story. The taxation of that money is a completely different issue. If I want to give it to my old friend or some guy I don't know or my wife, I should be able to. It seems like, if I own it, I have already been taxed on it, so there is no question that it shouldn't be taxed.

That's how it should work, but that's not how it works today.

Quote by: adam10312 Anyway, that's not a marriage issue. Why should someone who participates in some religious ritual get tax benefits that everyone else doesn't? That's unfair. I am not married. If I die I should have the same rights with respect to giving out my stuff that any married person does.

All very libertarian ideas, but again, that's not how it is today. Until the transfer of asset rights upon death are equalized, it most certainly is a marriage issue, as is the receipt of the deceased partner's social security and pension benefits. These benefits are not available to same sex couples, even if they're married in states that legally allow marriage, thanks to the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.

If the intertwining of marriage and the benefits listed above were replaced by agreements, then marriage would no longer be an issue.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Same sex couples are forced to navigate similar roadblocks while they're still alive. They have to specifically execute powers of attorney for medical and financial transactions so the able one can make those decisions on behalf of the partner who is unable to do so. In most states, heterosexual married couples only have to execute such documents to exclude each other from engaging in such transactions. Otherwise, those rights are basic and automatic.

[auggi1457]

My idea on homosexuality is that anyone should be able to marry anyone. It is not fair that you are allowed to be intamate or have a boyfriend or girlfriend of the opposite sex and not be able to marry them. I belive that the reason you are not allowed to marry of the same sex is for religious reasons. In the Chirstian bible it says that there are supposed to be a man and a women and they are supposed to have childeren. As we all know it is not possible for people of the same sex to have childeren, so I think that some people belive that it is a waste and morally wrong.

[Tycoon]

Anyway, that's not a marriage issue. Why should someone who participates in some religious ritual get tax benefits that everyone else doesn't? That's unfair. I am not married. If I die I should have the same rights with respect to giving out my stuff that any married person does.

I don't think that the whole issue is that same-sex couples don't receive the same benefits. To a small degree it is.

For me it's the fact that people would even deny me the right because of their self-righteous religious attitude that really makes me angry.

Which brings me to religion. Marriage does not always go hand-in-hand with religion. Heterosexual couples don't necessarily have their marriages in churches or temples etc. Not all heterosexual couples let religion play any part in their marriages. If an exception is made for these heterosexual couples, then to deny homosexual couples the right to marry is discrimination.

[Piscean]

Marriage being regulated by the govt. makes it a cheap and stupid thing anyway, if gay people are so damn determined to have the right to be taxed different and legally married so that when their "marriage" falls apart they hav to go through all the b.s. associated with divorce, let em hav it. It's a stupid thing to want and it has more to do with an alternative lifestyle being shoved down everybody elses throught than anything. The reward for winning the right to gay marriage is a crappy reward so who cares!

[Anmon]

I am totally against gay marriage, civil or otherwise, its not a good look for society.

[Jack]

its not a good look for society.

A society is made up of the people in it, both straight and gay.

[Anmon]

um get one thing straight Isherwood (pardon the pun) your dividing up of society into either gay or straight, is a gay agenda thing, not mainstream society's, we say heterosexual or homosexual.
And having homosexual partnerships recognised as equal to heterosexual partnerships in the eyes of the Church especially and the law, is not a good look for society, despite homosexuals being part of it.

[ShadowFox]

How so, Anmon?

[Anmon]

How so, to point out the obvious, because the ideal and most safe environment for a child to grow up in, is to have a male and a female role model who love each other, to look up to and learn from.
Two males do not provide these circumstances, nor do two females.

[Jack]

because the ideal and most safe environment for a child to grow up in, is to have a male and a female role model who love each other, to look up to and learn from.

Heterosexuals aren't doing a very good job of maintaining that ideal and haven't been since the 50s.