Homosexual Marriage

[Jack]

The purpose of marriage is not to promote the making of babies

1) To promote a stable nuclear family for successful child-rearing 2) To provide special protections to women, who are often required by medical circumstances related to pregnancy to stay at home and forego a professional career. 3) To provide special protections to either spouse should they decide to forego a professional career in order to be a stay-at-home parent.

OK, so marriage isn't about having babies, but every one of the examples you give of a "compelling interest for promoting traditional heterosexual marriage" are directly related to having babies. If we're confused on your argument, it might be because you're giving us contradictory statements here.

[Critter]

Yes, but who wrote those "rules"?

[Starboy]

Quote by: Isherwood Thank you, PH. The simplicity of that statement is beautiful.

No exactly, under that concept many people are married to thier pets.

Starboy

[Jack]

under that concept many people are married to thier pets

Got a problem with that?

[Dirty Name]

I can't believe people are still saying gays don't deserve equal rights......... sad.

Gays do deserve equal rights. And they already have them. Gay couples, however, are NOT equal to heterosexual couples. The Declaration of Independence says "all men are created equal" but NOWHERE does it say "all couples are created equal," and I don't see how anyone could possibly infer that they are.

[Jack]

You're right...they're better.

[ibm]

nowhere in the bill of rights or the constitution does it state that one can eat 3 meals a day and sleep at each night. and i can't possibly understand why so many people dare to do that.

[Dirty Name]

and by your argument, your are publicly promoting discrimination of the following different couples. consider – (1) joe, age of 25, marries mary, age of 23. and they will go on and have 3 children. just like the majority of us. (2) joe, age of 25, marries david, age of 23. don’t have plan to adopt any children. (3) joe, age of 25, marries david, age of 23. and they adopt 2 children. (4) joe, age of 25, marries mary, age of 23. knowingly or unknowingly, one or both of them are physically unable to reproduce. (5) joe, age of 55, marries mary, age of 50. they are unable to have children due to age. (6) joe, age of 25, marries mary, age of 23. they don’t plan to have any kids, though perfectly able to. i reckon in your logic, the government only has a “compelling interest” to promote and protect #1 then?

I've already been through this with Italiangm, but I don't mind covering the same old ground, as long as you are willing to consider what I'm saying...

Your quote above takes my argument and attempts to compress it so that it focuses only on the finished product - children. This is a mistake and a gross mischaracterization of my position.

It is critical to consider the potential to produce children, and the accompanying sacrifices that are made in preparation for such an event. In your example, no less than four of your six variables could result in the female partner making enormous sacrifices (which benefit our society) in order to prepare for pregnancy, childbirth and the raising of children.

Let's go through them:

(1) joe, age of 25, marries mary, age of 23. and they will go on and have 3 children. just like the majority of us.

This is the optimum situation, I think we all can agree that this relationship typically makes more sacrifices (which ultimately benefit society) than any other arrangement in this list. If someone disagrees, please let me know so we can walk through it.

(2) joe, age of 25, marries david, age of 23. don’t have plan to adopt any children.

I see nothing about this relationship that either (a) benefits society or (b) requires any undue sacrifice from either party. Thus, the state would have no compelling interest in granting marriage rights to them.

(3) joe, age of 25, marries david, age of 23. and they adopt 2 children.

The state has no compelling interest in allowing homosexual couples to adopt a child and deprive the child of either a mother or a father.

(4) joe, age of 25, marries mary, age of 23. knowingly or unknowingly, one or both of them are physically unable to reproduce.

Without knowing the specific reason for their inability to reproduce, it may be possible that the condition could be reversed. And if they didn't know they were infertile, there is still the strong possibility that Mary again makes sacrifices in preparation for child-rearing, even if those sacrifices are in vain.

In terms of the infertile couples who know before marriage that they are incapable of conceiving a child, these are the perfect candidates for adoption. Thus, again, infertile Mary might again make certain sacrifices in her early years in order to raise a family. That is why, in her later years, she (or her husband) deserves survivor benefits and other late-life benefits designed to strengthen the basic family unit.

(5) joe, age of 55, marries mary, age of 50. they are unable to have children due to age.

But what about Mary at age 25? Did she have children from a prior marriage? Did she sacrifice a career to raise a family? Did she sacrifice a career to make preparations to raise a family, even though it didn't come to fruition (whatever the reason)? Has she experienced medical hardships in her attempts to raise a family?

(6) joe, age of 25, marries mary, age of 23. they don’t plan to have any kids, though perfectly able to.

If they willingly don't wish to have children, there is still the possibility that they could change their minds, OR, that their attempts at birth control could fail.

I have attempted to illustrate through all of these examples that it's critical to consider the entire life span when discussing the issue of marriage and child-rearing. Raising a child does not simply consist of having sexual intercourse, giving birth, and collecting benefits. It's a lifelong committment that affects every segment of one's life.

The naysayers in this thread continue to try and chip away at my argument by simply taking slices of it and saying, "What about this specific situation?"

The answer is, as always, to define the costs of any proposed solution to a given problem to both individuals and society at large, to define the benefits of the proposal to both individuals and society at large, and to seek the best way to stimulate the strongest possible society for the lowest possible cost.

Gay marriage weakens society by devaluing marriage to the point where it is considered no different from any other sexual relationship. It should be clear to everyone that traditional marriage is far more than just a sexual relationship with benefits.

[ibm]

dirty, are you a female? just curious.

in all seriousness, bearing and giving birth to a child takes enormous pain (seen that) and raising the child takes enormous amount of energy and resources. no one can deny that. sure same-sex marriage is different from a traditional one. but is it somehow socially “inferior” and are the gay/lesbian couples involved not entitled to everything normal couples are? i think that’s where we part and the difference cannot be easily solved by a simple debate. (that’s why i said i am not here to convince you of anything.) i’m under the impression that you don’t really hate gays or lesbians, you just believe that gay- or lesbian-couples don’t deserve the same rights of a normal couple since the couples don’t sacrifice as much. yes? that, i believe, is not what our constitution states.

and, forgoing a career to stay at home raising kid(s) – why in your mind it is necessarily a sacrifice? i know a lot of working women, many very successful in their careers, would love to quit their jobs and stay at home with their children if they financially can so afford it.

[Osborn F Enready]

Dirty, that is warped man.

So people are here to serve society is what your saying?

What is your political alignment?

[Dirty Name]

Dirty, that is warped man. So people are here to serve society is what your saying? What is your political alignment?

What is warped about it, Osborn? Please tell me. Don't just tease me.

To answer your question, no. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that any benefit we extend to a particular group of people must have a solid reasoning behind it. We give tax breaks to married couples. Tax breaks cost money. Why do we do this? Does society benefit from married couples? My answer is yes, and should be obvious by now why I think this way, regardless of whether you agree or disagree.

My political alignment is staunch Republican. But I'm curious why you felt compelled to ask. Do tell.

[Dirty Name]

sure same-sex marriage is different from a traditional one. but is it somehow socially “inferior” and are the gay/lesbian couples involved not entitled to everything normal couples are?

Ah. The "entitlement mentality." Why are you prohibited from drawing unemployment benefits just because you have a job? Are employed people somehow "inferior" to jobless people?

Do you get my point now, or shall I go on?

[ibm]

a consdierable part of my pay goes to the pool that pays the benefit. so one day should i become unemployed, i'm entitled to the benefits. employed, are the same people, of those who are not at certain point of their lives.

what do they say? "work hard - many jobless are counting on you."

but what does this have to do with the topic? why are you entitled to all the human rights - before you even grow up?

so, no. i don't get your point.

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name How does marriage protect homosexuals? And what does it protect them from?

Quote by: Legal and Economic Benefits of Marriage On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to: -joint parenting; -joint adoption; -joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents); -status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent; -joint insurance policies for home, auto and health; -dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support; -immigration and residency for partners from other countries; -inheritance automatically in the absence of a will; -joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment; -inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate); -benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare; -spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home; -veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns; -joint filing of customs claims when traveling; -wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children; -bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child; -decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her; -crime victims' recovery benefits; -loss of consortium tort benefits; -domestic violence protection orders; -judicial protections and evidentiary immunity; -and more.... Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well. [emphasis added]

I've bolded the parts which I feel are not about children or an economic incentive to marry and are primarily about protecting the relationship or a person who outlives their partner.

[Osborn F Enready]

Dirty Name said:
What is warped about it, Osborn? Please tell me. Don't just tease me.

I say:
Because, our Constitution put limits on government that are being blatantly abused. To find attempt to find logic in favoritism, to me, is rather silly. It would almost indicate a condoning of favoritism, which in the case of the government doing this through legalized favoritism in taxes, is not only against our Constitution, but also blatant hypocrisy to their claim of liberty and JUSTICE. There is no justice in unfair taxation, and favoritism in tax laws justified on the concept of balancing the economy and still providing "necessary services" is a hoax. Those services are CLAIMED to be necessary by government, not services voted in to be necessities by the people. Under this same context, the government has allowed corporations to be treated favorably, as well as states have done the same, to lure or keep local business. This is a complete twist of what was supposed to dictate things like this in a free market, with equal taxation.

Dirty Name said:
What I'm saying is that any benefit we extend to a particular group of people must have a solid reasoning behind it. We give tax breaks to married couples. Tax breaks cost money. Why do we do this? Does society benefit from married couples? My answer is yes, and should be obvious by now why I think this way, regardless of whether you agree or disagree.

I say:
That is the whole point though, not only that I disagree, but I also point to our original law, and the deviations that have been made, and point that what "your side" has done is not only illegal, but is also one of the causes of many of our modern problems. When I say "your side", I mean those that are in power to change things, that hold your view, which entails the two major parties, which also happened to have been propagating a bi-partisan conspiracy against my countries constitution for over 100 years now.

You expect me to agree with your fundamental reasoning that taxation should be a tool for economy management, because for many years those in power have made it law(unconstitutionally) and everyone assumes its accepted, because there aren't people dying in the street to prevent it. The truth is, taxation was not meant to be inflicted on CITIZENS through PAYROLL, or any of the other ridiculous taxes they have come up with to provide the blank checkbook for their pet projects while neglecting the services that made them DEMAND the tax in the first place.

I don't agree.

Dirty Name said:
My political alignment is staunch Republican. But I'm curious why you felt compelled to ask. Do tell.

I say:
Because of the angle your taking on this, I had to figure you were either highly religious, or a republican. I was betting on Republican, and religious truly.

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: belverron I've bolded the parts which I feel are not about children or an economic incentive to marry and are primarily about protecting the relationship or a person who outlives their partner.

And for the most part, I have no problem in passing a law that protects any two people, regardless of sexual orientation or relationship, should they choose to enter into a contract with one another for the provision of the benefits you listed in bold.

I take issue with the last paragraph, quoted here:

Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well. [emphasis added]

First, does the marriage of Anna Nicole Smith ring a bell? Even heterosexual marriage does not guarantee one the right to carte blanche contracts.

I would argue that virtually all of the bolded items you listed can be accomplished via a civil contract (note: I did not say "Civil Union"), and such contracts should not require any sort of sexual partnership whatsoever. If two friends wish to have hospital visitation rights, they should be allowed to make those arrangements.

The point is that granting "equal status" to homosexual marriage is not necessary, nor fair to heterosexuals who have a lot more at stake.

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready [ Because of the angle your taking on this, I had to figure you were either highly religious, or a republican. I was betting on Republican, and religious truly.

Correct on both counts. But like you, I don't believe religious views should play much of a role in the formation of our laws, except when they can be empirically proven to be the best course of action.

[Osborn F Enready]

Dirty Name said:
But like you, I don't believe religious views should play much of a role in the formation of our laws, except when they can be empirically proven to be the best course of action.

I say:
I feel religious views should have NO role in formation of our laws. Even with empiracal evidence, I feel it should be strongly seperated from any religious ties to ensure allegations couldn't be made tying the decision wasn't influenced by religion. This is one reason I am absolutely against licensing for marriage in this modern day and age. There were health reasons involved when they started licensing for marriage, and it was a way to insure disease was not being spread to children, needlessly. This is not a necessity through this format anymore, and the licensing, as well as favorable taxation status should end.

This is one of the few examples where religion and government have mixed, and it has done NOTHING good for our society that could not have been acheived other ways, constitutionally.

[belverron]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready ...which entails the two major parties, which also happened to have been propagating a bi-partisan conspiracy against my countries constitution for over 100 years now.

Amen.

[belverron]

Oh, by the way, do you see how I used "amen" there? It's evidence that something once religious can become secular or have a secular usage. So there!