Homosexual Marriage

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: SVMc Your relatively high opinion of yourself, your lack of respect for others, and your rather impressive ability to consitently dodge any points made contrary to your argument may have more to do with convincing you of your own rightfulness than any errors on my belhalf. The benefits of a public forum is that the audience not the participants are the judges of ability.

I have been respectful of everyone I have responded to and I have answered everyone of your points with both precision and style. I haven't seen one that I did not address.

We've been over this ground before, and you have yet to respond. People choose who they marry in effect choosing who they will share state legislated rights with. Nevertheless through the marriage license the state confers the rights upon the couple.

I have never denied that the state grants married people benefits that they do not grant single people. In my exchanges with Starboy I even acknowledged that I would like to see those benefits eliminated. However, when we briefly discussed unemployment benefits, I asked you if you thought it was acceptable to limit unemployment benefits to people who were unemployed. From your response, you considered it okay as long as the requirements were "linked to the social function." So, what purpose or social function does marriage serve?

I made a suggestion pages, many pages ago (a suggestion backed by historical examples) that marriage has always been between a man and woman because of the reproductive roles associated with the sexes.

Since we are back at this point again, I ask you, if I am not correct about the purpose of marriage, what is the purpose of it? And don't give me any nonsense about everyone can their own definition. You ruled that out earlier.

And, we've been over this point before. I've answered all these suppositions of yours, but all you throw back is the same assertion, without even bothering to try to change, refine or explain it in the least.

:eek: I see that we are going have to recover a lot of territory. It may just be time for me to make my closing arguement.

Marriage a legal way for heterosexual couples to obtain rights under the law, rights that are denied to homosexual couples. There is no reason why we should expect or demand a higher level of legal responsiblity from homosexual couples than from heterosexual couples.

Marriage is not a way to obtain rights under the law, a marriage license is. This comes back yet again to the purpose of marriage. What is it?

First, I am not claiming that married individuals have the same rights as unmarried individuals.... Second, if what you meant to say is that I am being dishonest by saying that married heterosexual couples have more rights than a gay couple who can currently not obtain a marriage license..... the very fact that the gay couple cannot obtain a marriage license demonstrates the validity of that point. This entire debate exists because gay couples cannot get marriage licenses. You may not want them to be able to, but don't tell me that I'm lying when I say that they can't.

You are claiming exactly that. Let me be clear if I have not been, whether an individual may marry another individual depends entirely on who that person chooses to try to marry and nothing else.

You must be tired, that response makes much less sense than usual, which is saying a lot. The point is not about people signing or not signing contracts, the point is that gay couples are not able to even obtain a marriage license to sign let alone file it anywhere if they do sign it. Hence excluding them from civil marriage.

I think I have been clear on this...Two men (whether they are both gay or straight or one is straight and other not) will not be able to marry. Two women (same as before) will not be able to marry. A man and a woman (whatever their sexual preference is) will be able to marry if they meet all of the other rules about marriage.

It's really a very simple concept. If I was arguing that consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they wished then your attempts to link homosexuality through a slippery slope to incest, pedophilia, beastiliaty and what not could be valid. However stipulating that the law must recognize mutual CONSENT in any adult relationship, and also must protect individuals to the best capability of the law from HARM draws a firm line between acts that are consentual and harm no one such as homosexuality, and acts that have firm connections to harm and are questionable at best when we consider consent such as incest, pedophilia and beastility etc... That's why we look at both consent and harm. Individuals can consent to certain risks assuming they know all they can know about he risk they are taking. However, if there is evidence that the risk is taken by a minor, or under duress or coersion consent is not recognized. So, instances of pedophilia and incest are highly suspect when we consider the possiblity of consent being issued. This is markedly different from homosexuality which is consented to willingly by both partners and causes no harm to either partner or anyone outside the partnership.

Again, we are speaking about adults and adults are assumed to be rational and capable of taking care of themselves. The definition of incest in almost all places extends beyond a person's immediate family. Even if you were an adult and you had never met you first cousin in your life, if that sort of relationship were considered incest where you live at, you would not be able to marry her (at least not without lying about the circumstances,) would you?

If you don't like my definition of marriage and my explanation of its purpose, you need to offer your own.

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: SVMc You seem to be confusing the meaning of the word rhetorical.... rhetorical questions do not require an answer (i.e. Shall I compare thee to a Summer's day?). Posing a question that indicates your supposition of my opinion will get an answer weather or not you wish to receive one, simpley because it is not rhetorical. You seem to be having real difficulty with this all or nothing concept. I am NOT suggesting that if the state hands out a particular kind of benefit to a particular group of individuals that it must extend those same benefits equally to all individual regardless of any criteria. I am suggesting that when the state hands out benefits the criteria that they use to select which individual and groups of individuals receive those benefits must be in direct relation to the benefits beind distributed and not contraty to any discrimination that would be a human rights violation (or inconsistent with the benefits being extended).

Okay, maybe I am misunderstanding you. Are you trying to say that there is no difference between a couple of the same sex and a couple of opposite sexes?

For example, government paychecks are given to government employees and people who qualify for forms of social security. If you are not a government employee and do not qualify for social security you do not get a paycheck. People are not discriminated against in this scenario based on sex, gender, race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation etc....

With respect to marriage, my arguement is that no one is discriminated against on the basis of sex, gender, race, etc. Every single person has the exact same rights and has to meet the exact same requirements.

The state is in the business of issuing marriage licenses, it issues marriage licenses to adult couples who are seeking to gain the government benefits associated with a long term commitment. There is no legal reason why the government should only be able to extend those benefits to heterosexual couples and not homosexual couples.

Why does anyone care whether two people agree to a long term commitment?

You can write stuff like the above and still accuse me of dodging your points? That takes either a lot of guts or blind stupidity. Fine homosexual people are being prevented from marrying the partner of their choice by being prevented from marrying a partner of the same gender. In the future just for your own reference when I say that homosexual people are being excluded from marriage I am saying that they are being prevented from marrying the partner of their choice in a way that a heterosexual person would never be prevented from doing.

So? If I want to marry someone or something and I'm not allowed to, that is a human rights violation? I see now why most people don't take allegations of human rights abuses in GITMO seriously.

Well at least you are the first person to admit that a civil uion would not end up holding equal status to a marriage in the American society. Hence my suggestion which is still unanswered: Take marriage out of the states hands. Let marriage become like baptism and confirmation. In this way marriage is preserved as the territory of cultural and religious traditions. And, religions can marryor not marry whom ever they choose based on religious beliefs.

Okay fine.

At the same time extend civil unions to homosexual and heterosexual couples alike, all state recognized benefits assoiciated with marriage will now be carried by civil unions.

And why would we want to create civil unions? I really don't care if some guy dumps his girlfriend or his guyfriend or some lady dumps her guyfriend or ladyfriend. What need or function would they serve?

That is either a very biggoted statement or your english is failing you. A heterosexual couple (in common parlance) is a man and a woman who has formed a romantic relationship. Likewise a homosexual couple (in common parlance) is a same sex couple who have formed a romantic relationship. A couple of heterosexual are two people who happen to be heterosexual who are grouped together for unknown reasons. Likewise a couple of homosexuals are two people who happen to be homosexual who are grouped together for unknown reasons. The point of this trivial exercise that your rather ignorant statement has brought us to, is that regardles of your opinion of homosexual couples you can't wish them away through rather malliable laws of english grammar.

Again, how do you discriminate against a class of people without discriminating against the people who make up that class? You said earlier in your post, "You seem to be having real difficulty with this all or nothing concept. I am NOT suggesting that if the state hands out a particular kind of benefit to a particular group of individuals that it must extend those same benefits equally to all individual regardless of any criteria."

A couple is a group of individuals, is it not?

Do we really need to go back and quote all the previous discussion, or are you wishing them away as you are trying to wish away homosexual couplehood? Heterosexual couples have protections under the law issued by the government issued marriage license as it pertains to tax, property, custody of children, inheritance and power of attorney (all with the stipulation that no other legal arrangement exists - where such couples had the good forthought to create extra legal documentation those of course are considered). Married, single, gay or straight if you are proactive enough to always include a contract in all your personal affairs you are covered. However many people are not that proactive and this is where the problem lies of extending marriage licenses to only heterosexual couples who benefit from the marriage license in tax, property, custody of children, inheritance and power of attorney when no other legal arrangements have been made. It is the marriage license that acts as a special contract between the couple and it is the marriage license and those rights that homosexual couples are seeking.

You keep bringing this up, but I think I've adequately responded to it before so in the future I won't bother to respond at all.

But to be clear, I do not consider marriage to be a better (or worse) way to accomplish those goals. Marriage does not grant people the right to own property together, or to raise children together, or to have power of attorney for each other. However, if you are not willing to allow your potential spouse those rights, you will not be considered married.

To paraprase your own side of this debate, you don't need a marriage license to own a house together.

[SVMc]

Quote by: mr. perfecto To paraprase your own side of this debate, you don't need a marriage license to own a house together.

I have said many times that it is not the ability to own a house or the ability to write contracts between two individuals that is the crux of this debate. The fact is that legal marriage does grant rights / benefits issued by the state exclusively to married couples. You have agreed that this is the case:

Quote by: mr. perfecto I have never denied that the state grants married people benefits that they do not grant single people

We have both agreed that homosexual couples have the option to write various legal contracts between the individuals that would cover propety rights, inheritance, child custody, power of attorney and other benefits given to married couples.

What you have not responded to is: Why should a homosexual couple be held to a higher legal standard of responsibility to ensure their rights than a heterosexual couple?

A heterosexual couple has the option to get a marriage licence, if a married heterosexual couple fails to write up division of property, write a will, agree to the status of children brought into the marriage or sign a power of attorney, by virtue of the marriage license they will be givien consideration in a court whenever dealing with any of the above issues. The marriage license becomes a mitigating factor. A homosexual couple who also fails to write any of the above documents does not have any recourse in the courts even if their relationship was in all other aspects (long term commitment, living arrangements ect..) no different from the heterosexual relationship. Demanding that homosexual couples should be responsible for writing all of their own documentation when heterosexual couples are not is discrimination.

NOTE: I think we are both on the same page when we agree that one solution would be for the government to remove itself entirely from marriage, giving no legal benefits or status to any married couple heterosexual or homosexual.... however IMO that option is less likely to occur than the acceptance of homosexual marriage.

Quote by: mr. perfecto In my exchanges with Starboy I even acknowledged that I would like to see those benefits eliminated.

Quote by: mr. perfecto However, when we briefly discussed unemployment benefits, I asked you if you thought it was acceptable to limit unemployment benefits to people who were unemployed. From your response, you considered it okay as long as the requirements were "linked to the social function."

I must not have been clear enough. I quickly realized that my language was not precise enough in that post, and clarified that I was not indicating that discrimination could occur based on the capability to link the discrimination to any social function since one could argue that certain forms of discrimination that violate human rights are filling a "social function". Therefore in subesquent posts I was careful to use the phrase "direct co-relation"

Quote by: SVMc 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. Post #583

The discrminiation that is taking place cannot be linked to "any" social function, it must have a direct co-relation to the group which is being discriminated against. In UI/EI only those who have paid into UI/EI and are currently unemployed can receive UI/EI benefits.

Quote by: mr. perfecto So, what purpose or social function does marriage serve?

Currently? Marriage is a legally recognized bond between two people. A marriage licence issued by the state is s legally recongizned document recognizing the union of two people and giving them benefits under the law. There is nothing about marriage in the current context that would preclude the ability of same-sex partners to marry.

Marriage is also a cultural and religious status. This is why it is important to differentiate between civil marriage, which would be unharmed by homosexual marriages, and religious ceremonies which would not be forced to preform homosexual marriages.

Quote by: mr. perfecto I made a suggestion pages, many pages ago (a suggestion backed by historical examples) that marriage has always been between a man and woman because of the reproductive roles associated with the sexes. Since we are back at this point again, I ask you, if I am not correct about the purpose of marriage, what is the purpose of it?

And I responded to that point at lenght.
Post #571
Post #572
Post #578
Post #583

Quick summary:

The historical purposes of marriage are many and not singular. Some people argue that the purpose of marriage was to produce children, however this is flawed since children were and can be produced without the existence of marriage. It is more accurate to say that marriage was a social custom to solidify the parentage of children produced inside a marriage. In a patriarchial society this resulted in a social heirarchy where women and children were property belonging to men (the chattle system), women were expected to remain virgins until their wedding night, in effect marriage became a system under which women's reproductive functions were controlled, and were sold and bought from fathers to husbands.

Following this argument I have also said that a social custom that discriminates unfairly against a group of people for resons unrelated to their ability to contribute to society is a custom not worthy of legal preservation. That would be another question you have not addressed - why is a custom that is discriminatory worth preserving?

Quote by: mr. perfecto Marriage is not a way to obtain rights under the law, a marriage license is. This comes back yet again to the purpose of marriage. What is it?

:eek: Okay the marriage license is the way to obtain the rights, in conjunciton with the marriage license being signed by both consenting adult partners in front of a majistrate or justice and witnesses usually this signing activity is referred to as a "marriage" which has both a civil and religious connotation. What we are talking about is the civil marriage license and ceremony that are granted and denied by the government..... can we agree that this is what is under debate?

Quote by: SVMc First, I am not claiming that married individuals have the same rights as unmarried individuals.... Second, if what you meant to say is that I am being dishonest by saying that married heterosexual couples have more rights than a gay couple who can currently not obtain a marriage license..... the very fact that the gay couple cannot obtain a marriage license demonstrates the validity of that point. This entire debate exists because gay couples cannot get marriage licenses. You may not want them to be able to, but don't tell me that I'm lying when I say that they can't. Quote by: mr. perfecto You are claiming exactly that. Let me be clear if I have not been,

:eek: Sorry you are still not being clear, above I wrote two things which I thought you may be saying that I was claiming. I am still not sure which you think I am claiming and which you are taking issue with.

Again, I am not claiming that married individuals have the same rights as unmarried individuals under the law. (i.e. two people who are legally single yet living together do not have the same rights as two people who are legally married) I think we've agreed on this above.

I am claiming that a married heterosexual couple has more rights than a homosexual couple who cannot obtain a marriage license (to marry the partner of their choice), this I am claiming is discrimination.

Quote by: mr. perfecto whether an individual may marry another individual depends entirely on who that person chooses to try to marry and nothing else.

That is the issue, a heterosexual person may marry the partner of their choice, a homosexual person may not marry the partner of their choice.

Quote by: mr. perfecto I think I have been clear on this...Two men (whether they are both gay or straight or one is straight and other not) will not be able to marry. Two women (same as before) will not be able to marry. A man and a woman (whatever their sexual preference is) will be able to marry if they meet all of the other rules about marriage.

Again you have hit the unjustice / discrimination like hitting a nail on the head. This is the problem, homosexual people are not able to marry the partner of their choice. Just like in the past a mixed race couple was excluded from being able to marry, currently a same-sex couple is excluded from marriage. Saying that you legally marry someone, just not the person you want to marry and who wants to marry you is discrimination (as long as consent and harm are considered in this equation). Saying homosexual people can get married as long as they marry into a heterosexual partnership is evading the entire issue, and not a reasonable solution for anyone involved... hence the debate.

[SVMc]

Quote by: mr. perfecto Again, we are speaking about adults and adults are assumed to be rational and capable of taking care of themselves. The definition of incest in almost all places extends beyond a person's immediate family. Even if you were an adult and you had never met you first cousin in your life, if that sort of relationship were considered incest where you live at, you would not be able to marry her (at least not without lying about the circumstances,) would you?

I believe you were saying that you had answered all issues with percision and style. Style maybe, percision not so much. I have repeatedly stated why it is impossible to reliabily separate adult consent from childhood sexual abuse in instances of incest. I've already posted the links for you to review in a previous thread, here is the response you didn't address:

Quote by: SVMc Oh, I see you are advocating for that large volume of incest cases that are consentual, that do not involve child sexual abuse, and that have no negative psychological side effects... I must have missed that huge volume of case studies in my research. Would you please be kind enought to source your material of the signficant number on non-harmful fully consentual cases of adult initiated incest. Can't find record volumes of non-harmful incest cases that even begin to compare in scale to the volumes of incest cases that involve child abuse and great psychological and in some cases physical harm?.... well there's the reason that the incest debate is not pertinant to the homosexual marriage debate.

Quote by: mr. perfecto Are you trying to say that there is no difference between a couple of the same sex and a couple of opposite sexes?

As it pertains to the legal status of marriage I am saying that there is not legal reason, no difference that should be considered by law between a same sex couple and a opposite sex couple.

Quote by: mr. perfecto With respect to marriage, my arguement is that no one is discriminated against on the basis of sex, gender, race, etc. Every single person has the exact same rights and has to meet the exact same requirements.

The problem is that those requirements are discriminatory. Those requirements make the assumption that every person who wants to get married wants to marry someone of the oppostie sex. Since there is no harm involved in marrying a consenting adult of the same sex, then it is discrimination to preclude a same-sex choice from the marriage options.

Quote by: mr. perfecto Why does anyone care whether two people agree to a long term commitment?

I'm not sure, we'd need to ask the people who made marriage a legal institution with benefits, instead of leaving it as a social / religious custom that would hold the same status as baptisim or confirmation.

However as long as the law does recognize marriage and grant benefits based on who has a marriage license (signed, filed and so on) and who does not then it is discrimination to exclude homosexual marriages from civil marriage.

Quote by: mr. perfecto So? If I want to marry someone or something and I'm not allowed to, that is a human rights violation? I see now why most people don't take allegations of human rights abuses in GITMO seriously.

OFF TOPIC: What does GITMO mean? (assuming is similar to IMO)

ON TOPIC: Discrimination based on sexual orientation is a human rights violation in some countries. I think I've already written on this somewhere....

Quote by: SVMc Sexual Orientation is not currently protected (to the best of my knowledge) as a human rights value in the United States... it is in Canada and other countries who have passed same sex marriage... and there are and will be more appeals to the UN delcaration in Human Rights, there already have been cases that have lent significant strength to the UN adoption of sexual orientation as a protected status, like race, gender, ethnicity, religion etc.... The decision on protected status has to do with why the discrimination is occuring and if there is any legal reason that is pragmatic for the discrimination to occur. Other than a cultural "yuckiness" that seems to be expressed by the moral majority, there seems to be no reason why discrimination should occur based on sexual orientation as homosexuality does not affect ablility to contribute to society any more than a heterosexual person. Post #632

Quote by: SVMc Take marriage out of the states hands. Let marriage become like baptism and confirmation. In this way marriage is preserved as the territory of cultural and religious traditions. And, religions can marryor not marry whom ever they choose based on religious beliefs. Quote by: mr. perfecto Okay fine. At the same time extend civil unions to homosexual and heterosexual couples alike, all state recognized benefits assoiciated with marriage will now be carried by civil unions. Quote by: mr. perfecto And why would we want to create civil unions? I really don't care if some guy dumps his girlfriend or his guyfriend or some lady dumps her guyfriend or ladyfriend. What need or function would they serve?

Wow, common ground, who-da-thunk-it? Okay, ideally the civil unions do not need to be created. Ideally marriage becomes a non-legal status. However, IMO I think it will be more difficult to remove the benefits associated with marriage than to include gay marriage within those benefits. So I included the inclusive ideal of civil unions for an instance where civil unions would be an equal legal arrangement for both homosexual and heterosexual couples under the law. In essence separating the social / religious status of marriage from the legal status of marriage for both hetero and homosexual couples.

Quote by: mr. perfecto I am NOT suggesting that if the state hands out a particular kind of benefit to a particular group of individuals that it must extend those same benefits equally to all individual regardless of any criteria." A couple is a group of individuals, is it not?

??? :eek: Umm, maybe I am missing your point, would you like to elaborate?

So, every time you have presented this argument it has been in conjunction with an example of taxation or unemployment benefits, to which I have responded in the post above have direct co-relations for the discrimination that they use to define who gets the benefits and who does not.

Are you now agreeing that discrimination based on criteria that is directly co-related to the government issued benifit or requirement is acceptable within the current context?

If, so then the argument from my side is that homosexuality is not directly co-related to the requirements of marriage, ergo the government cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation for same-sex couples who want to marry each other.

Quote by: SVMc Married, single, gay or straight if you are proactive enough to always include a contract in all your personal affairs you are covered. However many people are not that proactive and this is where the problem lies of extending marriage licenses to only heterosexual couples who benefit from the marriage license in tax, property, custody of children, inheritance and power of attorney when no other legal arrangements have been made. It is the marriage license that acts as a special contract between the couple and it is the marriage license and those rights that homosexual couples are seeking. Quote by: mr. perfecto I have never denied that the state grants married people benefits that they do not grant single people Quote by: mr. perfecto No, the result would be exactly the same either way. Either my stuff would go to who I wanted it to go to, or it would not. Whether I was single or married, gay or straight, man or woman the result would be entirely under my control--if I were proactive enough to care and to act to bring about the result that I wanted. Quote by: mr. perfecto You keep bringing this up, but I think I've adequately responded to it before so in the future I won't bother to respond at all.

Responding via direct contradiction to your own argument hardly qualifies in my thinking as an adequate response. On one had you acknowledge that marriage grants people benefits that they do not grant single people. On the other hand you argue that your legal rights would be the same if you were single, married, gay or straight. Which is it?

[Sasha]

Are you now agreeing that discrimination based on criteria that is directly co-related to the government issued benifit or requirement is acceptable within the current context? If, so then the argument from my side is that homosexuality is not directly co-related to the requirements of marriage, ergo the government cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation for same-sex couples who want to marry each other.

I was wondering if you could expand on this, it seems that if the definition of marriage is changed then your right; but untill that point the requirements of marriage is that a man and a woman agree to legaly bind themselves to a union, ergo the government can discriminate, not directly on sexual orientation but on the composition of the union. Hence, it is not an argument to change the definition, only a result of a changed definition.

I

[Starboy]

Quote by: Sasha I was wondering if you could expand on this, it seems that if the definition of marriage is changed then your right; but untill that point the requirements of marriage is that a man and a woman agree to legaly bind themselves to a union, ergo the government can discriminate, not directly on sexual orientation but on the composition of the union. Hence, it is not an argument to change the definition, only a result of a changed definition. I

Not for reasons of tradition alone. The government can only proscribe the choices people make if those choices can be shown to be of harm to society. No harm, no foul. Otherwise the government then takes sides as to what particular tradition to uphold and in a country that describes itself as a melting pot such a task is something the government should never do. As long as you are free to practice your traditions and they harm no one than you should just let bygones be bygones otherwise you establish a precident of dictating tradition and when that happens the worm can turn.

Starboy

[ansil]

Okay, first of all I agree that the government shouldnt have anything to do with marriage, but instead with the rights that come with marriage which we have dubbed "marriage license."

Now my train of thought is as follows (of course thats why you guys are here to catch flaws in the train of thought, but bear with me). The government is here to protect the liberty of all Americans. I, like many Americans believe the best way to raise a kid is with a traditional family of Man and Woman. Now don't get me wrong I didnt say it wasn't the only way, and everyone who is raised by another way is going to be screwed up somehow, Im just saying for the best chance for this kid to live in society is to be brought up in a tradition family. The government sees this. In by doing so, theres government benifits for marrying someone and having kids aka marriage license. The government is just saying if you marry someone we will give you some extra benifits aka the marriage license to start a family and try to raise a kid. Now dont get me wrong, I know we live in a time where the family structure is totally different for different people, divorce parents, single parents, adoption, and lets say for this purpose homosexual adoption. But the different family structures that I have named all have different benifits. For example, If you are divorce you dont get those benifits anymore, or if you are a single parent or if you are homosexual, you give up tax benifits. So my argument is this, the government gives extra benifits to people who have the tradition marriage for the well being of the family. Right now they dont think Single parents, divorce parents or homosexual marriage is the "best" thing, so they dont give the "extra" benifits to those in the category. Does that all of a sudden make Single Parents or Divorce parents or homosexual marriage a second class citizen. No! that all falls in the social issues, which has nothing to do with the government

For example Full time Students in College are given many benifits in the government( student loans, credit benifits, tax beniftis, etc) For a person who is the same age who isnt in school doesn't get these benifits. Does that mean this person human rights are being infringed because he isnt getting the same benifits. No the government sees "college bound" kids a better assistance in making the society better. So they give them benifits. Is the kid who doesnt go to college, a second class citizen. No. Also I am not saying the kid or doesnt go to college is going to be a loser, just that the government sees the college bound kid has a better chance.

Also SVC said there was "harm" done in an incest marriage, but I do not see that all. If a brother and sister wants to get married, they are both adults, Let them get married if they can. They are not going to get a married license, not because theres harm to one another, but because the government sees incest has hurtful to the kid they will have. The kid is much more likely to have down syndrome, that is why the government doesnt give benifits to an incest marriage and has even made it illegal. That type of marriage doesnt make society better as a whole. Im not saying that homosexuals can not making society better, but it doesnt fit into the governments view of the perfect family and that is why they do not get benifits from the marriage license.

In summary if homosexuals are given different set of benifits aka civil unions, I dont see why that is so bad. They fall into a different set of family structure, they get different benifits. No one is saying they are a second class citizen or infringing on their human rights. Human rights is not being allowed to ride the hetrosexual bus or use a "hetrosexual" fountain.

[SVMc]

Quote by: Sasha I was wondering if you could expand on this, Quote by: SVMc Are you now agreeing that discrimination based on criteria that is directly co-related to the government issued benifit or requirement is acceptable within the current context? If, so then the argument from my side is that homosexuality is not directly co-related to the requirements of marriage, it seems that if the definition of marriage is changed then your right; but untill that point the requirements of marriage is that a man and a woman agree to legaly bind themselves to a union, ergo the government can discriminate, not directly on sexual orientation but on the composition of the union. Hence, it is not an argument to change the definition, only a result of a changed definition.

"Marriage" as discussed earlier in that same thread is not simply a definition, one religious or social view point etc.. etc.. The significant part of marriage that makes the same-sex challenge possible is that the marriage license when granted and implemented grants state issued benefits to the two people who are married.

If marriage was simply a union between one man and one woman, without any state recognition, legal status or state issued benefits then this debate would not take place since marriage would be something in the same realm as baptism, confirmation or for that matter the definition of "heterosexual couple".

A "heterosexual couple" is one man and one woman involved in a relationship. A marriage is more than that because of the legal status and benefits associated with it.

The definition of "marriage" comes into play since that is how the government decides who qualifies to receive a marriage license.

For example a "vetran" is a person who has served in the armed forces Source the government uses the definition of vetran to determine who receives vetrans benefits and who does not. We accept that when veterans benefits are being issued they are being issued based on discriminatory principles that have a direct co-relation between the benefit and the group receiving the benfits. Likewise someone who is "unemployed" is not engaged in a gainful occupation (same source), however we have decided that there must be other factors along with unemployment, such as having been employed perviously for a pre-determined amount of time which constitutes contribution to the unemployment fund. Likewise the discrimination here has a direct co-relation with the benefits.

If we were to expand vetrans benefits to include everyone than they would cease to be vetrans benefits. However making sure that vetrans benefits include all vetrans regardless of race, sex or sexual orientation does not change the nature of veterans benfits. Likewise if we were to expand EI benefits to all persons in general without criteria then the term is meaningless and ceases to preform it's function since the function is to act as a buffer for the unemployed, if everyone is receiving the EI regardless of employment then it is a base starting point and not EI. However making sure that unemployed people who are gay are able to access EI the same as unemployed people who are straight does not affect the nature of EI.

In the case of marriage, the union that legally recongizes a couple under the law extends benefits that society at one time has viewed are necessary to protect the individuals in a couple when the law enteres the lives of that couple. In cases of property division, inheritance, child custody, power of attorney and more, if there is no other documentation, and there is a marriage license the marriage license serves to signal a special relationship between the two individuals involved in the marriage license when considering the matters above. If these benefits are passed on to adult consenting couples who are involved in intimate relationships then there is no reason why a homosexual couple should not be able to benefit from their intmate long term relaionship any more or less than a heterosexual couple is able to benefit from thier relationship.

BTW is the incest debate now settled?

[Starboy]

Quote by: ansil Also SVC said there was "harm" done in an incest marriage, but I do not see that all. If a brother and sister wants to get married, they are both adults, Let them get married if they can. They are not going to get a married license, not because theres harm to one another, but because the government sees incest has hurtful to the kid they will have. The kid is much more likely to have down syndrome, that is why the government doesnt give benifits to an incest marriage and has even made it illegal. That type of marriage doesnt make society better as a whole. Im not saying that homosexuals can not making society better, but it doesnt fit into the governments view of the perfect family and that is why they do not get benifits from the marriage license.

I don't think the government has any business determining and enforcing the "perfect" family. What is happening now with the heavy hand of government has made is so that many parents do not dare discipline their children. They now call the cops for family disputes. Sorry, but government is the most blunt, most clumsy, most difficult to control and least likely instrument for upholding family values. Only complete idiots look to the government to do it. What they should be doing is making sure that the government provides the freedoms originally set out by the founding fathers that allow us to seek life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When you get government involved in what is the "perfect" family is when you have screwed up big time.

This whole cluster f*ck was started by people confusing government licenses with sacred rites.

In summary if homosexuals are given different set of benifits aka civil unions, I dont see why that is so bad. They fall into a different set of family structure, they get different benifits. No one is saying they are a second class citizen or infringing on their human rights. Human rights is not being allowed to ride the hetrosexual bus or use a "hetrosexual" fountain.

You don't see it as being bad because you still confuse the government’s role with sacred roles of the church. Anything the government does must be equal for all Americans. It is Americans of their own free will that choose to follow and practice their own traditions. When you get the government involved then that it is a step backwards as far as American values of freedom are concerned.

Starboy

[SVMc]

Quote by: ansil Now my train of thought is as follows (of course thats why you guys are here to catch flaws in the train of thought, but bear with me).

Throwing the switch.

Quote by: ansil In by doing so, theres government benifits for marrying someone and having kids aka marriage license... So my argument is this, the government gives extra benifits to people who have the tradition marriage for the well being of the family.

The big problem with arguing that the government provides marriage benefits based on the benefits of the traditional marriage is that is simply not why the government provides benefits to married couples.

First, the largest part of the benefits extended to married couples involve spousal benefits. These benefits are the ones that let you have input into the medical treatment of your spouse if your spouse is unable to do so for themselves, make legal and financial decisions on behalf of your spouse if they are unable to do so for themselves (think hospitilization, coma etc...). These benefits were not put in place to preserve the nuclear family, but to make sure that it is family and not the state who gets to make personal decisions for an incapacitated individual. Many adults will no longer have parents, and the sibling relationship may not be as strong as the marital relationship. Extending these benefits to homosexual partners through marriage does not damange the nuclear family, since the nuclear family would still have access to all the same rights.

The second large category of benefits issued to married couples involve fiduicary obligations. A marital relationship establishes certain bonds of trust and trustee especially in relation to property purchased within the marriage (property division), standard of living (alimony), and children involved in the marriage (custody). Again benefits that are granted to marital couples in this respect are not there to preserve the nuclear family, but to aid in the dissolution of the nuclear family if and when it does dissolve so that there are clear laws of distribution for each partner in the relationship. Making sure that homosexual partners can access the same fiduciary benefits of heterosexual couples does not damage the nuclear family since heterosexual couples would still be able to access these benefits also.

Tax.... this is where we may be able to have a debate. There are ten thousand arguments as to why, when and how tax laws should be organzied. We could all sit down and agree that the tax laws governing married couples should not exist and maybe we could all walk away happy that every individual regardless of marital status has to be goverened by the same tax laws (which I know that mr. perfecto would like to see as no tax laws... another debate). One argument for tax laws in marriage is that originally men were considered to be defacto sole bread winners, when they took a wife they took on a dependant hence a tax write off. Now that we have dual income households in most instances I would have a very difficult time advocating for the continued existance of tax laws in marriage, except to say that they should be applied equally regardless of sexual orientation. I can't possibly imagine what your sexual orientation should have to do with how much tax you pay.

Quote by: ansil For example Full time Students in College are given many benifits in the government( student loans, credit benifits, tax beniftis, etc) For a person who is the same age who isnt in school doesn't get these benifits.

Goes directly to the direct co-relation point. Students as a group receive student benfits, non-students do not. Gay, Straight, Black, White, Male, Female, Hindu, Christian students all receive the same benefits and the same groups of non-students are all not receiving those benefits. This is the same as the veterans benefits or the EI debate.

Quote by: ansil Also SVC said there was "harm" done in an incest marriage, but I do not see that all. If a brother and sister wants to get married, they are both adults, Let them get married if they can.

Please go read the pamela ramsay study that I posted to Sasha, the co-relation between incesteous relationships and childhood sexual abuse are staggering. I have yet to see any statistics on incesteous marriage that is initiated in adulthood and suffers no negative psychological side effects that even begins to come close to the data that shows most incest is harmful to those involved and has long term lasting negative psychological side effects.

IF incest was not harmful, and IF the only objection to incest was that it is socially "yuckky" then we may have a debate but that is NOT the case. IMO people only put incest in the same context as the homosexual marriage debate to try to paint homosexuality as something much uglier and more taboo than is the reality.

Quote by: ansil Human rights is not being allowed to ride the hetrosexual bus or use a "hetrosexual" fountain.

Mmmm, no.

Discrimination based on human rights is preventing peoples freedom to act and live, (and in the US pursuit of happiness) for reasons that are unrelated to that persons ability to preform, participate or execute the task at hand.

Or Human Rights

The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law.

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: SVMc I have said many times that it is not the ability to own a house or the ability to write contracts between two individuals that is the crux of this debate. The fact is that legal marriage does grant rights / benefits issued by the state exclusively to married couples. You have agreed that this is the case:

A you have stated that the requirements must be tied directly to the function. I agree. My point this entire time has been that the requirements are exactly that. No one is denied the right to marry because of race, religion, gender, sexual preference, etc. If you are a black person and you want to marry some one, you have to adhere to exactly the same standards as everyone else must.

We have both agreed that homosexual couples have the option to write various legal contracts between the individuals that would cover propety rights, inheritance, child custody, power of attorney and other benefits given to married couples. What you have not responded to is: Why should a homosexual couple be held to a higher legal standard of responsibility to ensure their rights than a heterosexual couple? A heterosexual couple has the option to get a marriage licence, if a married heterosexual couple fails to write up division of property, write a will, agree to the status of children brought into the marriage or sign a power of attorney, by virtue of the marriage license they will be givien consideration in a court whenever dealing with any of the above issues. The marriage license becomes a mitigating factor. A homosexual couple who also fails to write any of the above documents does not have any recourse in the courts even if their relationship was in all other aspects (long term commitment, living arrangements ect..) no different from the heterosexual relationship. Demanding that homosexual couples should be responsible for writing all of their own documentation when heterosexual couples are not is discrimination.

I responded to that point earlier. No is held to a higher legal standard. Marriage is not an alternative form of legal agreements that only heterosexuals are allowed to make. If you examine your situation and it fits within the definition of marriage, you get married if you want to. If your situation does not fit within the definition of marriage, then you can't get married.

Incorporation is not a better buisness model than a sole proprietorship. They both are equal. However, if you incorporate, there will be requirements and obligations that you must adhere to that you would not have to otherwise. Sharing property, survior rights, child custody, etc. are REQUIREMENTS for marriage, NOT BENEFITS of it.

If you are unwilling to agree to those things, you do not marry because, when you marry, you agree to those things whether you realize it or not. Even if you would be willing to agree to those things, you still can not marry that person if doing so would put you in conflict with the marriage laws.

Quote by: mr.perfecto You keep bringing this up, but I think I've adequately responded to it before so in the future I won't bother to respond at all. But to be clear, I do not consider marriage to be a better (or worse) way to accomplish those goals. Marriage does not grant people the right to own property together, or to raise children together, or to have power of attorney for each other. However, if you are not willing to allow your potential spouse those rights, you will not be considered married. To paraprase your own side of this debate, you don't need a marriage license to own a house together.

NOTE: I think we are both on the same page when we agree that one solution would be for the government to remove itself entirely from marriage, giving no legal benefits or status to any married couple heterosexual or homosexual.... however IMO that option is less likely to occur than the acceptance of homosexual marriage.

Probably true. :(

I must not have been clear enough. I quickly realized that my language was not precise enough in that post, and clarified that I was not indicating that discrimination could occur based on the capability to link the discrimination to any social function since one could argue that certain forms of discrimination that violate human rights are filling a "social function". Therefore in subesquent posts I was careful to use the phrase "direct co-relation"

So, you are saying the purpose or fuction of marriage is to discriminate against homosexuals?

The discrminiation that is taking place cannot be linked to "any" social function, it must have a direct co-relation to the group which is being discriminated against. In UI/EI only those who have paid into UI/EI and are currently unemployed can receive UI/EI benefits.

We are going to have to more deeply discuss the purpose of marriage before I can substantially respond this; however, if you responded yes to my previous question, then you have your work cut out for you. I do not believe there purpose of marriage is to discriminate against homosexuals. There is nothing about the marriage laws that would allow a person to determine whether person is homosexual or not.

Currently? Marriage is a legally recognized bond between two people. A marriage licence issued by the state is s legally recongizned document recognizing the union of two people and giving them benefits under the law. There is nothing about marriage in the current context that would preclude the ability of same-sex partners to marry. Marriage is also a cultural and religious status. This is why it is important to differentiate between civil marriage, which would be unharmed by homosexual marriages, and religious ceremonies which would not be forced to preform homosexual marriages. And I responded to that point at lenght. Post #571 Post #572 Post #578 Post #583 Quick summary: The historical purposes of marriage are many and not singular. Some people argue that the purpose of marriage was to produce children, however this is flawed since children were and can be produced without the existence of marriage. It is more accurate to say that marriage was a social custom to solidify the parentage of children produced inside a marriage. In a patriarchial society this resulted in a social heirarchy where women and children were property belonging to men (the chattle system), women were expected to remain virgins until their wedding night, in effect marriage became a system under which women's reproductive functions were controlled, and were sold and bought from fathers to husbands.

:eek: I still wouldn't copy off of your paper if were taking a history class together.

Following this argument I have also said that a social custom that discriminates unfairly against a group of people for resons unrelated to their ability to contribute to society is a custom not worthy of legal preservation. That would be another question you have not addressed - why is a custom that is discriminatory worth preserving?

I would have to accept your premise to respond to this, and currently I am in disagreement with i