Homosexual Marriage

[xpanda]

The right to religious freedom will ensure that polygamy is one day brought forth for legislation. And why not? For as much as a homosexual marriage damages a heterosexual one, a polygamous marriage does as much harm to a two-party marriage, which is to say, none.

So long as all parties are given full information and all are of legal age of consent, whose business is it exactly, what shape their marriage shall take.

(WIth regard to incestual marriage, social taboos will prevent this. Only the smallest of social groups in the most primitive regions have practiced this form of marriage, the last dying out in Hawaii roughly 100 years ago. It is not in our species' best interest to procreate with relatives. Likewise, marrying one's pet is a ridiculous notion, and will only be entertained by the seriously deranged, or perhaps someone looking for a new Fox reality TV show.)

[SVMc]

Mr. Perfecto - you're getting sloppy as you are splitting hairs.

Quote by: mr. perfecto Changing the number of people involved in a "marriage" wouldn't change the fact that property is being shared.

Just like I have said that marriage is not ONLY about baby-making capability. I have also said that marriage is a SPECIAL property sharing arrangement between two people legitimized by the government in the context of two people being married. Marriage is not the ONLY property sharing arrangement in existance. But it does exist as a property sharing relationship.

Quote by: mr. perfecto You haven't offered a reason why marriage should be restricted to two people.

In fact I offered two, (both of which you quoted) if you are unhappy with the reasons then take issue with the reasons, don't say I offered none.

The first was:

Quote by: SVMc First, the tax benefits, spousal benefits and inheritance benefits given by the state to married persons are all premised on a specific assumed contract between two married individuals and their rights to each others possessions based on the relationship that they share / shared. Now I'm all for doing away with these provisions entirely assuming that they are done away with for heterosexual couples as well as homosexual couples. However if they are extended to heterosexual couples IMO it is discrimination not to extend them to homosexual couples.

The second was:

Quote by: SVMc The second reason that polygamy is different than same-sex marriage is harm. While a case can be made that polygamy in itself causes no harm, the tendancy is for women especially young women to be exploited by polygamous marriages. Since a same-sex marriage is between two consenting adults, there is only as much chance of harm based on domination and exploitation as there is in a heterosexual marriage. Also an argument could be made that because of women's social status (which I will mark as largely better now than in previous generations) there is more chance of harm by domination and exploitation in a heterosexual marriage than in a homosexual marriage.

Quote by: mr. perfecto Assumed harm. Polygamy exists in other cultures. It would certainly be unfair for us to exclude the arrangement based on our biased, self-righteous opinion about those cultures. We are different after all. We can allow it and not run into problems because our society is just naturally better.

Yes polygamy exists in other cultures (as well as some cultures within the US). However, I was very careful to say that: "there is a tendancy for young women and girls to be exploited". I never said that polygamy necessairly leads to this exploitation, however this exploitation is far more likely to occur as long as women still have less social and economic power than men in a society. If this were not true then we would see more polygamous societies where one woman marries multiple men. As it is we do not. Do I have an issue with polygamous marriage in an egalitarian society. No. Do I think an egalitarian society currently exists. No. The relation between polygamous marriage and the exploitation of women and girls is why it is currently illegal. If that relationship changes to the point were it can be assumed that the majority of people entering into polygamous marriages are doing so of their own free will, without coersion and without exploitation within the relationship, then yes, I'm sure the laws will be revisted. As it stands at this point there is still a strong association of harm with polygamous marriages. Ergo probability of harm is an important difference between polygamous marriages and homosexual marriages.

Quote by: mr. perfecto The state does not assume that the two shared property, the law says they do and they agreed to before they got married.

Well the state legislature makes the laws, so that is really splitting hairs to say that the law gives married couples property rights instead of the state. But whichever way it's still the same point. A heterosexual married couple is given certain property rights under the law, that are assumed even if there is no will. Meanwhile a homosexual partnership is not given those same rights under the law because they are not viewed as married. Even though they shared property, and had a long relationship. That's discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Quote by: mr. perfecto Family will still be able to challenge wills after SSMs are allowed. How is one legal arrangement (marriage) supposed to stop what another (a will) would not? Even in the case of one woman-one man marriages, family can (successfully) challenge a will. (Possibly off-topic) I have never heard any lawyer suggest that because you are married, you don't need a will. In fact, I have always heard the opposite--if you are married you absolutely should have a will.

Single, married, heterosexual, homosexual the smart thing to do is to have a will. And yes single, married, heterosexual, homosexual after you are gone there may be a legal battle between relatives over your will, your legal will, will give more weight to that battle.... all of this is beside the point.

The issue is what if you don't have a will. In the case where a heterosexual couple is married and they did not prepare a will in advance of the death of one partner. The law assumes certain property rights to the partner who is left by virtue of the fact that they were legally married. If other family members challenge the property given to the spouse, then the marriage license is a mitagating factor in favour of the spouse. In a homosexual relationship if the partners do not prepare a will in advance of the death of one partner the partner who is left has less legal claim on property they shared with the deceased partner than the deceased blood relatives do. Despite the fact that the surviving partner may have shared a long term relationship in close living conditions with the deceased partner, and the relatives may be long estranged from the deceased partner. Access to secular marriage licenses for homosexual couples means that discrimination against homosexual couples in that area of marriage would end. They would still need to fight similar legal battles to heterosexual couples.

Quote by: mr. perfecto The government does not grant spouses property rights, they grant each other such rights when they get married.

If you're heterosexual that works fine, you decide to get married and defacto decide to share property and even if you don't write your will the government or law when distributing your assets will automatically consider your spouse as the prime beneficiary. However if you are homosexual and share a committed long term relationship without access to a marriage licence and like the above heterosexual couple neglect to write a will then the government will not consider your long term partner as the prime beneficiary when you pass away. Sorry, the government does have a lot to do with it. That's why it's an issue.

[SVMc]

Quote by: mr. perfecto But at the same time, I recognize that producing children is the key component to understanding marriage.

Producing children may be a key component to some marriages... it may be a reason some marriages take place in the first place (conception before marriage), but today kids are not the one and only reason people get married. It's not even a key component for the vast majority of marriages since numerically many marriages are second marriages that involve blending families, or both partners may already have children and not want more, or maybe some couples don't want them at all, or maybe both partners were single parents, or one or the other and so on and so forth.

Quote by: mr. perfecto The idea that producing children has no involvement in marriage is ahistorical.

I'm not saying children NEVER had a role to play in marriage. Women were once sold to men (doweries) for their reproductive capapbilities. But now that we're out of the dark ages and people are able to marry whom they choose for reasons of love and being able to build and share a life together, why should some people be able to choose who they want based on sexual orientation and others not be able to?

Quote by: mr. perfecto A same-sex couple hold their own ceremony here in the US. However, holding one does not create any sort of legal relationship between the two people.

And, that is percisely the issue, if a same-sex couple holds a ceremony no one in the US can legally bind it. But if a heterosexual couple holds a ceremony a justice of the peace or a religious official can legally bind it. This is why it should be equal for both.

Quote by: SVMc I'm all for the state removing itself from "marriage". If "marriage" is so important to the religions let "marriage" become a non-state matter similar to baptism or confirmation. No hetero or homosexual couple would have any state rights based on "marriage". If any couple homo or heterosexual wanted the state rights they would need to get a "civil union".

Quote by: mr. perfecto Why should the line between each tax bracket be drawn where it is?

That's an entierly different debate.

Quote by: mr. perfecto the bottom bracket X amount or percent, and the top bracket pays X amount or percent. The two classes are not treated the same. By your definition (if I am correct) this would have to be considered discrimination also. Is it?

I will not justify a tax system existing (in this debate), nor will I justify how people are taxed (in this debate)... lets keep it to the idea that people are taxed in different tax brackets according to income.

You are asking why it is acceptable to tax people different rates based on income (i.e. income discrimination) and why it is not okay to exclude homosexual couples from marriage (i.e. marital discrimination based on sexual orientation).

This does come back to the apples to apples argument. Let's run through them all quickly. There are some forms of discrimination that are acceptable to the (what do you guys use in the States?) Charter of Rights (Canadian term). These include not allowing people who have never been employed, who are not citizens and who are currently working from collecting umeployment insurance. This is because you are taking a population as whole and without prejudice distributing unemployment to those who need it and not those who don't. Likewise you need to be a vetran to collect vetrans benefits.

For tax purposes you are not taxed differently because you are male or female, black or white, hindu or christian. Those would be forms of discrimination that are against the Charter of Rights. Those forms of discrimination run counter to the charter of rights because they limit an individual freedom based on a personal characteristics which have nothing to do with what kind of citizen that person is. Likewise we as a society (and increasingly many in the US) are realizing that to discriminate based on sexual orientation is the same kind of discrimination as sexism, racism or religous discrimination.

So discrimination with income tax rates based on income has a direct co-relation, between income earned and contribution or need; to or from society.

Quote by: mr. perfecto I have already shown that there is no discrimination taking place in whether a specific couple is allowed to marry.

You have shown no such thing. Homosexual couples are not allowed access to marriage licenses in the US, that is discrimination.

Quote by: mr. pefecto Anyone who meets the requirements will be allowed to marry.

Why should the requirements to marry be anything other than two consenting adults? Why is opposite genders a requirement to receive a marriage license?

Quote by: mr. pefecto The only reason I could think of that some people continue to insist that discrimination is taking place is that the rules themselves are discriminatory.

I'm glad we can reach agreement on this issue. Yes, the rules that exclude homosexual couples from receiving marriage licenses are discriminatory. They should be changed.

Quote by: mr. perfecto Just to be clear, I believe it is okay to be a homosexual (whatever that means.) Quote by: SVMc It means having a sexual and romantic preference for the same gender. It's good that you believe it's okay, I'm assuming you also believe it's okay to be a woman, or black, or hindu. Quote by: mr. perfecto Certainly it is okay to be a woman or black.

Very interesting that you excluded the religous freedom from your reply.

Quote by: mr. perfecto Is there any set of circumstances where, if blacks were not allowed to marry whites, blacks could actually marry whites anyway?

Well, blacks were not only not allwed to marry whites, they had to sit at the back of the bus, eat in different sections of the restaurant, use different bathrooms and schools etc.. etc.. However after many legal appeals, and much activism the civil rights movement was sucessful in reducing racism to a point where people and the legal systems realized that discrimination based on skin colour was a violation of human rights. Now blacks can marry whites. Of course like the transition to allowing homosexual marriages the civil rights movement allowing different races to marry and have full social rights happened at different times in different countries.

Quote by: mr. perfecto How do you explain the fact that individual homosexuals have been or are married now under traditional marriage?

Well Canada, New Zealand, and Denmark, as well as some states and many other countreis that are currently overturning laws on their books recognized that discrimination based on sexual orientation is a violation of human rights and extended marriage laws to include homosexual couples.

Quote by: mr. pefecto Hmm, the question is what would constitute "their own kind." Within the class of people called homosexuals, there are also subclasses of people--those who want to marry someone of the same sex and those who do not.

First I used the line "their own kind" to highlight a popular racist statement that was used to justify racial segregation.

Quote by: SVMc Should black people also only associate with "their own kind"?

Second, within the class of people called heterosexuals, there are also a subclasses of people--those who want to marry someone of the opposite sex and those who do not. (They're called single).

The difference is just because there are single heterosexual people who do not want to get married to someone of the opposite gender does not mean that we don't allow any heterosexual people to get married.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: SVMc Your entire argument is based on the idea that marriage is nothing more than baby-making.

No :-)))

The difference between couples that represent opposite gender and homosexualists is as (it) follows : homosexualists can not prolong Mankind.
Stating that there are some couples that can not have children is meaningless, since those couples may not have children for variety of reasons while homosexualists can not even match the bases for a marriage because they represent the same gender.
In Vitro is not going to help homosexualists, either.

Today, we have homosexualists, and we may have next "inspired" tomorrow, who will claim that they "love" animals and they want to marry them, claiming a cat as a spouse for example.
Later, other "love-filled inspired" would claim the rights to get married things around, like a table or a closet for example.
Both groups - follow homosexualists example, may damand the same and equal rights to get a marriage licence, since they are "in love", as well.
If our ancestors thought that way, there is nobody left on planet Earth, today.

There is an additional factor, in case of homosexualists-made marriage.
It is money.
Since we all can marry something or somebody, and fill tax papers demanding relief for a couple and additionally claiming some dependants, who is going to pay tax, at all ?
I can claim few chairs as my children, not too mention cats, dogs, ect.
So being as a single, suddenly it appears that I have a spouse and some children. As the result, I pay less and get away with paying tax.
Who is going to bulid a state and by what means ? since all the people claim spouses and children ?

Off Topic
Save these elaborates you submit for some other members, please. More data, instead.
Thank you.

[xpanda]

uh .. what's a 'homosexualist'?

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: SVMc Mr. Perfecto - you're getting sloppy as you are splitting hairs. Just like I have said that marriage is not ONLY about baby-making capability. I have also said that marriage is a SPECIAL property sharing arrangement between two people legitimized by the government in the context of two people being married. Marriage is not the ONLY property sharing arrangement in existance. But it does exist as a property sharing relationship.

What is special about marriage?

Maybe I'm starting to reach you? Hopefully, we can follow this thought to its logical conclusion. After all these pages, it would be very satisfy to actually help a liberal heal himself.

In fact I offered two, (both of which you quoted) if you are unhappy with the reasons then take issue with the reasons, don't say I offered none. Quote by: SVMc First, the tax benefits, spousal benefits and inheritance benefits given by the state to married persons are all premised on a specific assumed contract between two married individuals and their rights to each others possessions based on the relationship that they share / shared. Now I'm all for doing away with these provisions entirely assuming that they are done away with for heterosexual couples as well as homosexual couples. However if they are extended to heterosexual couples IMO it is discrimination not to extend them to homosexual couples. The second was: Quote by: SVMc The second reason that polygamy is different than same-sex marriage is harm. While a case can be made that polygamy in itself causes no harm, the tendancy is for women especially young women to be exploited by polygamous marriages. Since a same-sex marriage is between two consenting adults, there is only as much chance of harm based on domination and exploitation as there is in a heterosexual marriage. Also an argument could be made that because of women's social status (which I will mark as largely better now than in previous generations) there is more chance of harm by domination and exploitation in a heterosexual marriage than in a homosexual marriage.

Firstly, as pointed out earlier, there is no assumed contract between married persons. The marriage itself is a contract. Secondly, you had implied that you would be addressing why it was okay to discriminate against polygamists and not homosexuals and then started talking about assumed contracts and the assumed harm caused by polygamy. You have already stated (multiple times) that consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they wish, so did you address the point? Not from what I could see.

Yes polygamy exists in other cultures (as well as some cultures within the US). However, I was very careful to say that: "there is a tendancy for young women and girls to be exploited". I never said that polygamy necessairly leads to this exploitation, however this exploitation is far more likely to occur as long as women still have less social and economic power than men in a society. If this were not true then we would see more polygamous societies where one woman marries multiple men. As it is we do not. Do I have an issue with polygamous marriage in an egalitarian society. No. Do I think an egalitarian society currently exists. No. The relation between polygamous marriage and the exploitation of women and girls is why it is currently illegal. If that relationship changes to the point were it can be assumed that the majority of people entering into polygamous marriages are doing so of their own free will, without coersion and without exploitation within the relationship, then yes, I'm sure the laws will be revisted. As it stands at this point there is still a strong association of harm with polygamous marriages. Ergo probability of harm is an important difference between polygamous marriages and homosexual marriages.

Well the state legislature makes the laws, so that is really splitting hairs to say that the law gives married couples property rights instead of the state. But whichever way it's still the same point. A heterosexual married couple is given certain property rights under the law, that are assumed even if there is no will. Meanwhile a homosexual partnership is not given those same rights under the law because they are not viewed as married. Even though they shared property, and had a long relationship. That's discrimination based on sexual orientation.

I have said that neither the state nor the law gives a married people property. The two people getting married give each other the rights. Neither the state nor the law force any two people to marry.

Single, married, heterosexual, homosexual the smart thing to do is to have a will. And yes single, married, heterosexual, homosexual after you are gone there may be a legal battle between relatives over your will, your legal will, will give more weight to that battle.... all of this is beside the point. The issue is what if you don't have a will. In the case where a heterosexual couple is married and they did not prepare a will in advance of the death of one partner. The law assumes certain property rights to the partner who is left by virtue of the fact that they were legally married. If other family members challenge the property given to the spouse, then the marriage license is a mitagating factor in favour of the spouse. In a homosexual relationship if the partners do not prepare a will in advance of the death of one partner the partner who is left has less legal claim on property they shared with the deceased partner than the deceased blood relatives do. Despite the fact that the surviving partner may have shared a long term relationship in close living conditions with the deceased partner, and the relatives may be long estranged from the deceased partner. Access to secular marriage licenses for homosexual couples means that discrimination against homosexual couples in that area of marriage would end. They would still need to fight similar legal battles to heterosexual couples. If you're heterosexual that works fine, you decide to get married and defacto decide to share property and even if you don't write your will the government or law when distributing your assets will automatically consider your spouse as the prime beneficiary. However if you are homosexual and share a committed long term relationship without access to a marriage licence and like the above heterosexual couple neglect to write a will then the government will not consider your long term partner as the prime beneficiary when you pass away. Sorry, the government does have a lot to do with it. That's why it's an issue.

Marriage is, in and of itself, a contract between the spouses. If a heterosexual does not prepare a will in advance of death, and they are not married, the same thing happens. Why can't a homosexual just create a will? Or is there discriminate happening there too?

This is an example that many SSM advocates bring up, but upon careful consideration, the issue evaporates. If I I died, the end result would be exactly the same whether I was gay or straight.

Also, being married often serves to complicate inheritance.

[SVMc]

Quote by: SVMc Your entire argument is based on the idea that marriage is nothing more than baby-making. Quote by: rainbow No :-))) The difference between couples that represent opposite gender and homosexualists is as (it) follows : homosexualists can not prolong Mankind.

Please explain to me how that is not the baby-making argument. You are saying that the basis for marriage is the ability to prolong Mankind. In former posts you have said that the only way to prolong Mankind is:

Quote by: rainbow - sexual intercourse between 2 opposite genders

Ergo, your argument has one leg.... that marriage exists to prolong the human race and since the human race is not prolonged through homosexual intercourse homosexuals should not be allowed to marry.

You have not responded to any of my points as to why procreation is not a legally justifiable reason to discrimiate against people willing to enter into a secular marriage. Again, those argumetns are:

Quote by: SVMc I think the first obvious thing to point out here is that many, many gay couples do have children. http://www.colage.org/ Procreation is not limited by the ability to marry. If a marriage license were required to produce a child then we would not be discussing the problems of high teen pregnancy rates in other threads.

Quote by: SVMc As for the argument that allowing same-sex couples to marry would change the purpose of marriage that assumes that the purpose of marriage is to procreate. While this may be true for Catholics and some Christians, it is a "purpose" based in religious values. Allowing secular gay marriage does not mean that churches will have to marry gay couples. Just like the Catholic church is currently under no obligation to marry or rent their chruch facilities to non-catholics.

Quote by: rainbow Stating that there are some couples that can not have children is meaningless, since those couples may not have children for variety of reasons while homosexualists can not even match the bases for a marriage because they represent the same gender. In Vitro is not going to help homosexualists, either.

Again I may have to point out that many homosexuals do have children. http://www.colage.org/. I'm not entirely sure what your basis is for saying that homosexuals could not use In Vitro? Are homosexual women so biologically different from heterosexual women that homosexual women's uteruses would not accept an In Vitro egg? Likewise if heterosexual couples can secure the help of surrogate mothers there is nothing to prevent homosexual couples from doing the same thing. Finally you failed to respond to the argument below.

Quote by: SVMc To be homosexual does not preclude the ability to do a sexual act with a member of the opposite gender... and arguably if a homosexual person has sex with the member of the opposite gender to produce a child we can relate that choice more closely to procreation than any sex act between a heterosexual couple using birth control.

Quote by: rainbow Today, we have homosexualists, and we may have next "inspired" tomorrow, who will claim that they "love" animals and they want to marry them, claiming a cat as a spouse for example. Later, other "love-filled inspired" would claim the rights to get married things around, like a table or a closet for example. Both groups - follow homosexualists example, may damand the same and equal rights to get a marriage licence, since they are "in love", as well. If our ancestors thought that way, there is nobody left on planet Earth, today.

Hasn't this argument been covered it more intelligent forms in the last ten pages not to mention the 40 preceding those.

The difference between homosexuality and beastility (or homosexuality and requesting marriage to inanimate objects.... that's just plain silly) is:

1) CONSENT
Homosexual relationships like heterosexual relationships involve the consent of two adults.

2) HARM
Since a animal is not able to give sexual consent, it cannot be an act of free will and hence sex with an animal is animal cruelty. Likewise sex with children is pedophilia and is illegal. Acts of homosexual sex between two consenting adults causes no harm.

Quote by: rainbow There is an additional factor, in case of homosexualists-made marriage. It is money. Since we all can marry something or somebody, and fill tax papers demanding relief for a couple and additionally claiming some dependants, who is going to pay tax, at all ? I can claim few chairs as my children, not too mention cats, dogs, ect. So being as a single, suddenly it appears that I have a spouse and some children. As the result, I pay less and get away with paying tax. Who is going to bulid a state and by what means ? since all the people claim spouses and children ?

That's just silly. Allowing marriage between two consenting adults is not by any means a lead in to individuals claiming household furniture as dependats for tax decuctions.

If I may quote you again that claim is:

Quote by: rainbow Off Topic Save these elaborates you submit for some other members, please. More data, instead. Thank you.

[PatrickHenry]

Who edited my poll? The questions have changed. This is wrong and MUST be restored. I will PM Sean...

[Livemike]

Quote by: SVMc Please explain to me how that is not the baby-making argument. You are saying that the basis for marriage is the ability to prolong Mankind. In former posts you have said that the only way to prolong Mankind is: Ergo, your argument has one leg.... that marriage exists to prolong the human race and since the human race is not prolonged through homosexual intercourse homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. You have not responded to any of my points as to why procreation is not a legally justifiable reason to discrimiate against people willing to enter into a secular marriage. Again, those argumetns are: Again I may have to point out that many homosexuals do have children. http://www.colage.org/. I'm not entirely sure what your basis is for saying that homosexuals could not use In Vitro? Are homosexual women so biologically different from heterosexual women that homosexual women's uteruses would not accept an In Vitro egg? Likewise if heterosexual couples can secure the help of surrogate mothers there is nothing to prevent homosexual couples from doing the same thing. Finally you failed to respond to the argument below. Hasn't this argument been covered it more intelligent forms in the last ten pages not to mention the 40 preceding those. The difference between homosexuality and beastility (or homosexuality and requesting marriage to inanimate objects.... that's just plain silly) is: 1) CONSENT Homosexual relationships like heterosexual relationships involve the consent of two adults. 2) HARM Since a animal is not able to give sexual consent, it cannot be an act of free will and hence sex with an animal is animal cruelty. Likewise sex with children is pedophilia and is illegal. Acts of homosexual sex between two consenting adults causes no harm.

But animals can clearly consent to sexual activity with humans, haven't you ever had a dog hump your leg? They just can't consent to legal relationships like marriage.

Quote by: SVMc That's just silly. Allowing marriage between two consenting adults is not by any means a lead in to individuals claiming household furniture as dependats for tax decuctions. If I may quote you again that claim is:

[SVMc]

Quote by: livemike But animals can clearly consent to sexual activity with humans, haven't you ever had a dog hump your leg?

We just got a new beagle puppy a few weeks ago... who tends to do the humping the leg thing.... now our dog trainer keeps telling us that it's a domiance issue for dogs and dogs will do that to other dogs and to people until dominance is established... but if my puppy is making a pass at me.... I'm really going to have to find a new dog trainer!!

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: SVMc Producing children may be a key component to some marriages... it may be a reason some marriages take place in the first place (conception before marriage), but today kids are not the one and only reason people get married. It's not even a key component for the vast majority of marriages since numerically many marriages are second marriages that involve blending families, or both partners may already have children and not want more, or maybe some couples don't want them at all, or maybe both partners were single parents, or one or the other and so on and so forth.

I'm not sure what point you are making with this... Some people get married because they are drunk, does that have any bearing on why marriage was created in the first place?

I'm not saying children NEVER had a role to play in marriage. Women were once sold to men (doweries) for their reproductive capapbilities. But now that we're out of the dark ages and people are able to marry whom they choose for reasons of love and being able to build and share a life together, why should some people be able to choose who they want based on sexual orientation and others not be able to?

I suspect you are ignorant of history (or perhaps just over generalizing,) so I am going ignore the statement about doweries. Since there isn't much else there except (probably shameless) emotional pleas, moving on...

And, that is percisely the issue, if a same-sex couple holds a ceremony no one in the US can legally bind it. But if a heterosexual couple holds a ceremony a justice of the peace or a religious official can legally bind it. This is why it should be equal for both.

That is because one is a legal agreement and the other is a promise. I could promise you that you could beat me senseless everyday and sodomize me after that, but if I later change my mind, why should the state enforce that?

That's an entierly different debate. I will not justify a tax system existing (in this debate), nor will I justify how people are taxed (in this debate)... lets keep it to the idea that people are taxed in different tax brackets according to income.

I don't expect you to actually respond to the issue. The question was mostly rhetorical. Just consider the question as you are responding.

You are asking why it is acceptable to tax people different rates based on income (i.e. income discrimination) and why it is not okay to exclude homosexual couples from marriage (i.e. marital discrimination based on sexual orientation). This does come back to the apples to apples argument. Let's run through them all quickly. There are some forms of discrimination that are acceptable to the (what do you guys use in the States?) Charter of Rights (Canadian term). These include not allowing people who have never been employed, who are not citizens and who are currently working from collecting umeployment insurance. This is because you are taking a population as whole and without prejudice distributing unemployment to those who need it and not those who don't. Likewise you need to be a vetran to collect vetrans benefits.

For tax purposes you are not taxed differently because you are male or female, black or white, hindu or christian. Those would be forms of discrimination that are against the Charter of Rights. Those forms of discrimination run counter to the charter of rights because they limit an individual freedom based on a personal characteristics which have nothing to do with what kind of citizen that person is. Likewise we as a society (and increasingly many in the US) are realizing that to discriminate based on sexual orientation is the same kind of discrimination as sexism, racism or religous discrimination.

No, individually I would not be taxed differently because of my sex, religion, etc. But it is very easy to analyze which classes of people are in each bracket and point to discrimination because of it.

So discrimination with income tax rates based on income has a direct co-relation, between income earned and contribution or need; to or from society. You have shown no such thing. Homosexual couples are not allowed access to marriage licenses in the US, that is discrimination.

I have shown exactly such. If a homosexual wants to get married, he or she can find a suitable partner of the opposite sex. The issue of sexual preference is not brought up or mentioned in any of the rules I have ever read about who can and can't marry.

Why should the requirements to marry be anything other than two consenting adults? Why is opposite genders a requirement to receive a marriage license?

Because that is what it takes to start a family?

Why have any requirements at all? Some people have a preference for their relatives, some have a preference for animals, and some folks have a preference for their own sex. Why limit the definition at all?

I'm glad we can reach agreement on this issue. Yes, the rules that exclude homosexual couples from receiving marriage licenses are discriminatory. They should be changed.

:p Where did I say I agree with you?
The flaw (one of them) with this class-based stance is how do you discriminate against a class of people without discriminating against the individuals that make up that class.

Very interesting that you excluded the religous freedom from your reply.

Just because someone is allowed to do something doesn't mean that I have to think it is okay or to condone it.

Well, blacks were not only not allwed to marry whites, they had to sit at the back of the bus, eat in different sections of the restaurant, use different bathrooms and schools etc.. etc.. However after many legal appeals, and much activism the civil rights movement was sucessful in reducing racism to a point where people and the legal systems realized that discrimination based on skin colour was a violation of human rights. Now blacks can marry whites. Of course like the transition to allowing homosexual marriages the civil rights movement allowing different races to marry and have full social rights happened at different times in different countries.

Again, I think you are possibly ignorant of history (or over generalizing) and I'm not sure what you were responding to here (certainly not the statement I made,) but thanks for the history lesson.

Well Canada, New Zealand, and Denmark, as well as some states and many other countreis that are currently overturning laws on their books recognized that discrimination based on sexual orientation is a violation of human rights and extended marriage laws to include homosexual couples.

Notice the words "traditional marriage?"

First I used the line "their own kind" to highlight a popular racist statement that was used to justify racial segregation. Second, within the class of people called heterosexuals, there are also a subclasses of people--those who want to marry someone of the opposite sex and those who do not. (They're called single). The difference is just because there are single heterosexual people who do not want to get married to someone of the opposite gender does not mean that we don't allow any heterosexual people to get married.

Homosexuals are not forbidden to marry. If you were one and you found a willing woman, you could go just about anywhere in America and be married.

Why do you continually dodge this point? The only class (all the people who comprise it)of people being discriminated against is people too ignorant to have a clue what marriage is.

[SVMc]

mr. perfecto - if you're going to accuse me of dodging your points I can do the same:

Quote by: mr. perfecto What is special about marriage? Quote by: SVMc I have also said that marriage is a SPECIAL property sharing arrangement between two people legitimized by the government in the context of two people being married.

Secular marriage gives particular or special rights to spouses under the law. These rights include property rights (where none are otherwise stipulated) and power of attorney rights (where none is signed) and inheritance rights (where there exists no will).

Quote by: mr. perfecto After all these pages, it would be very satisfy to actually help a liberal heal himself.

Your making some pretty bold assumptions here, and bringing it to a personal level.

Quote by: mr. perfecto Firstly, as pointed out earlier, there is no assumed contract between married persons. The marriage itself is a contract.

That's splitting hairs, weather or not you view marriage as an assumed contract or marriage as the contract itself that provides rights to spouses then that is the reason that homosexual partners want access to marriage licenses.

Quote by: mr. perfecto You have already stated (multiple times) that consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they wish, so did you address the point?

That isn't what I said. I have stated that consenting adults should be able to do whatever they wish to do so long as it involves CONSENT and does NOT cause HARM.

Quote by: mr. perfecto Secondly, you had implied that you would be addressing why it was okay to discriminate against polygamists and not homosexuals and then started talking about assumed contracts and the assumed harm caused by polygamy.

The stipulation that consenting adults have the right to do what they want in the bedroom so long as it involves CONSENT and does NOT cause HARM is why polygamy can be discriminated against because that in the current social / economic context the close relationship between polygamy and the exploitation of girls and women in polygamous marriages is the reason the polygamy is currently not being considered as a re-defiintion to the marriage laws.

The UN Human Rights Committee has deplored that the practice of polygamy persisted in Gabon, which was incompatible with the principle of equality between men and women, and recommended the review of legislation to guarantee improved rights for women in the country. The Committee recommended, among other things, that Gabon review its legislation and its practices to guarantee that women had the same rights, including the right to property and inheritance. It insisted that concrete measures should be taken to strengthen the participation of women in the political, economic, and social sectors of the nation, and to ensure that no discrimination based on customary laws was practised against women concerning marriage, divorce and inheritance. Source

Quote by: mr. perfecto I have said that neither the state nor the law gives a married people property. The two people getting married give each other the rights.

If two people stand up and say "I marry you, I marry you" that does not give them the tax breaks, inheritance protection and stipulated power of attorney in medical emergencies over the person they said they married. A legal document issued by the state called a marriage license is what gives people access to the state issued benefits that come with the marriage license being signed. Yes, an individual may choose whom they wish to share that legal arrangement with hence in effect giving that other person those rights in that relationship, but it is still the state that confers the legal status upon issuing the license.

Quote by: mr. perfecto Neither the state nor the law force any two people to marry.

No they don't force any two people to marry, but they do prevent two homosexual people from being able to marry each other. That is the issue.

Quote by: mr. perfecto If a homosexual wants to get married, he or she can find a suitable partner of the opposite sex... Homosexuals are not forbidden to marry. If you were one and you found a willing woman, you could go just about anywhere in America and be married.... Why do you continually dodge this point?

This is the separate but equal idea with a little twist. It used to be okay to discriminate based on race, so peole would say that a white person and black person couldn't be married... now we see that as racism and it is unacceptable and illegal. Saying that a homosexual person can marry whichever person of the opposite sex they choose is like saying you can marry whichever woman you choose so long as she has the same colour eyes as you. It works fine if you fall in love and want to marry a woman with the same colour eyes, but if you fall in love with someone with different coloured eyes what right should the courts or states have to prevent the two of you from being married? Likewise if a homosexual person falls in love with another homosexual person why should they not have the choice to be able to marry that person? To exclude that possiblity is discrimination.

Quote by: mr. perfecto Marriage is, in and of itself, a contract between the spouses.

Which is why homosexual couples want access to marriage licences, so they can have access to that contract between two people.

Quote by: mr. perfecto If a heterosexual does not prepare a will in advance of death, and they are not married, the same thing happens.

Not quite, if a heterosexual couple is married and they do not prepare a will in advance of death as you yourself recognized "Marriage is, in and of itself, a contract between the spouses" and that contract is recognized in law by the marriage license meaing that the the surviving married partner in a heterosexual marriage will have assumed beneficiary rights.

Now if a heterosexual live-in couple does not pepare a will they are in the same boat as a homosexual live-in couple. The difference is that the heterosexual live-in couple has the option to establish the legal bond of marriage through the marriage license, where as the homosexual couple is denied that option.

Quote by: mr. perfecto Why can't a homosexual just create a will? Or is there discriminate happening there too?

A large number of homosexual couples do create wills percisely for this reason. But providing alternate recourse does not constitute equality. Holding homosexual people to a higher legal standard of responsibility than heterosexual people is discrimination. Heterosexual couples have protection under the law by the virtue of the marriage license that legally recognizes a relationship that shares property, medical decision making and inheritance. Sure, close proximities to marriage can be instituted by couples constructing legal contracts with the help of a lawyer to noterize them.... but that is a separate but equal argument which is in and of itself discriminatory.

Quote by: mr. pefecto If I I died, the end result would be exactly the same whether I was gay or straight.

That's only true if you are single.

Quote by: mr. perfecto Also, being married often serves to complicate inheritance.

Well then extending marriage rights to homosexual couples would complicate inheritance equally for homosexual couples and heterosexual couples.