Homosexual Marriage

[Dirty Name]

Is religion - any religion whatsoever - required in order for someone to get married? (yes, but you can be joined in a semanticly different venue under a justice of the peace) Is it even a requirement to get married in a church? (depends on the church) Is religion required before married couples can claim federal tax benefits? (No, which is further proof of the sudden emergence of this blatant descrimination against gays.) Is a religious ceremony - or any ceremony at all - actually required in order to be legally married? (It depends on what you deem ceremony. Is it a ceremony to be joined under Gods eyes in front of a Justice of the Peace?)

I guess you've never heard of "common-law marriage." Or getting married by the Captain of a ship.

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name Those without children are sucking up resources while doing nothing to contribute to society's compelling interest of existing in perpetuity.

Existing in perpetuity, as you say, is not society's only compelling interest. Humanity's, perhaps. In any case, most countries are fighting overpopulation. So why does the state have an interest in promoting childbirth? Hell, if they'd stop doing that with tax-breaks and programs like TANF maybe we wouldn't have such a ridiculous portion of children born into poverty.

[ibm]

joe and mary live next door to david and mike. joe and mary have a lovely daughter who is 9-years old and goes to public school.

mary was a successful businesswoman before she got married and has quit her job ever since she was pregnant.

joe and mary file joint 1040 and as a household pays about 20k in federal income tax.

david and mike both work and combined make a little more than joe. since the state they live does not recognize their marriage and therefore they can only file their 1040’s as individuals without all the itemized deductions, they pay about 40k income tax combined – doubling what their neighbors pay.

joe and mary also pay property tax on their house at about 8k a year.

david and mike have a similar house and pay about 8k for property tax as well. of the 8k, ~3k is levied by the isd where joe and mary’s daughter goes school.



benefit? sacrifice? rights? compelling interest?

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name To assert that my position relies purely on "bait and switch tactics" is insulting.

Your words, not mine. :)

Quote by: Dirty Name There is no "governmental compelling interest." Government is simply society's way of ensuring it's compelling interests are met. The terms are interchangeable as I use them. This isnt' rocket science. Quit hiding behind grammar and syntax and let's have a debate.

I contend that, outside family/contract law -- which addresses property and childcare issues whenever a disagreement or the potential for harm is established -- there is no compelling interest for the government to uphold. Thus, there is no basis for your list of opinions parading as "facts".

It is precisely because certain laws speak to your falsely-invented construct of "society" (and that special interest subgroup known as "married couples") that individual liberty and equality -- as enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution -- has suffered.

The marriage subsidiy is a sham. But if you're going to perpetuate a sham at least do it equitably. Otherwise, the sham needs to be dismantled. Either way, a level playing field is necessary to remain faithful to the spirit of our founding documents.

[Osborn F Enready]

italiangm said:
The marriage subsidiy is a sham. But if you're going to perpetuate a sham at least do it equitably. Otherwise, the sham needs to be dismantled. Either way, a level playing field is necessary to remain faithful to the spirit of our founding documents.

I say:
Well said, to the point, and eloquent. I agree.

[Osborn F Enready]

Dirty Name said:
I guess you've never heard of "common-law marriage." Or getting married by the Captain of a ship.

I say:
I guess you didn't notice it is specifically called a "common-law" marriage, and distinguished semanticly from regular, religious type marriage. As far as being married by a Captain, I believe there is an issue of proving recognition in your area to receive tax benefits from the marriage.

The point is, marriage spawned from religion, and was UN-consitutionally adopted into U.S. law and provided tax benefits for those who participated. Its variety of ways acheiving the benefits provided for marriage expanded over time, much as it should by LOGIC to homosexuals.

You also seem to disregard that there is a NORM established for homosexuality. It has been observed in all forms of mammals I believe, though I can't guarantee ALL forms, I do KNOW a great many have been proven. IT occurs in nature, without mans influence.

Your basic argument about society structure is running on vague preconceptions. There is a lot to be understood about societies needs, and the best way to manage it. The main thing about a society though, is it has laws inherantly, because without laws a society doesn't last very long AS a society.

Those laws are set by the people that make up a society, and government and society must abide by those laws equally. In our Constitution in our society, managing society as you condone is not Constitutional, therfore, would be in essence, against the basic rules set forth by the society.

You also seen to evoke the thought that "allowing" homosexual marriages would STOP regular marriage from occuring, and would seriously spike a loss of reproduction.

I have to wonder where those ideas would come from, since they appear to make no apparent sense at all to me.

[Dirty Name]

benefit? sacrifice? rights? compelling interest?

Do you agree or disagree that the neighborhood in which your hypothetical gay couple lives would be better off if their heterosexual neighbor kid stayed in school, got good grades and went on to be a productive member of the society in which they all live?

Anyone can selfishly claim that they don't give a crap what happens to the child, since they didn't conceive her and they aren't responsible for her. But if you want to live in total anarchy, you're in the wrong country. If you want to live in total isolation, then go buy an island somewhere, raise your own food, build your own defenses, treat your own illnesses with whatever remedies you can come up with, and when your gay lover gets ill and dies, you can die knowing that you have no legacy with which to speak of, and that if everyone did it your way, mankind would last but a single generation.

For the rest of us, reality dictates that we all do our share, so that there is food to eat, clothes to wear, and homes to live in. And a large community of people seem to do best when the children are educated and prepared for life when they become adults.

You can either pay for their education now, or you can pay for their welfare check later. So in order to reap the benefits of living in a community with other people, it's necessary to pay for some of the common costs which the majority believes is in the best interest of the society at large.

I can't believe you people are actually making me explain this basic stuff.

[Dirty Name]

But if you're going to perpetuate a sham at least do it equitably.

My point is that homosexual couples don't qualify for the "subsidy" any more than single people do. There is ZERO difference between two homosexuals living together and two friends sharing an apartment. Would you argue that any two people living together deserve this subsidy?

[ibm]

Quote by: Dirty Name Do you agree or disagree that the neighborhood in which your hypothetical gay couple lives would be better off if their heterosexual neighbor kid stayed in school, got good grades and went on to be a productive member of the society in which they all live?

#1, i agree.
#2, having a gay couple or 2 in the community does not stop that.
#3, what does this have to with what’s under the debate?

Quote by: Dirty Name Anyone can selfishly claim that they don't give a crap what happens to the child, since they didn't conceive her and they aren't responsible for her. But if you want to live in total anarchy, you're in the wrong country. If you want to live in total isolation, then go buy an island somewhere, raise your own food, build your own defenses, treat your own illnesses with whatever remedies you can come up with, and when your gay lover gets ill and dies, you can die knowing that you have no legacy with which to speak of, and that if everyone did it your way, mankind would last but a single generation.

huh? is that your justification why a child-less gay couple (child-less hetero couple as well) should pay part of the cost for the education of their neighbor’s kids?

Quote by: Dirty Name For the rest of us, reality dictates that we all do our share, so that there is food to eat, clothes to wear, and homes to live in. And a large community of people seem to do best when the children are educated and prepared for life when they become adults.

share, by default, is a two-way street, dirty. otherwise it’s called “exploit”.

Quote by: Dirty Name You can either pay for their education now, or you can pay for their welfare check later. So in order to reap the benefits of living in a community with other people, it's necessary to pay for some of the common costs which the majority believes is in the best interest of the society at large. I can't believe you people are actually making me explain this basic stuff.

so as gay couple, you’d better pay (way) more to get the approval of “the majority” and their “best interest” “at large”, eh?

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name My point is that homosexual couples don't qualify for the "subsidy" any more than single people do.There is ZERO difference between two homosexuals living together and two friends sharing an apartment. Would you argue that any two people living together deserve this subsidy?

These have been aswered before.

[Dirty Name]

#1, i agree. #2, having a gay couple or 2 in the community does not stop that. #3, what does this have to with what’s under the debate?

#1: Good, I'm glad. It shows you're not an idiot.
#2: That was never my point.
#3: Everything. It's pretty basic stuff, dude.

huh? is that your justification why a child-less gay couple (child-less hetero couple as well) should pay part of the cost for the education of their neighbor’s kids?

Yes, it is. You can either pay for them when they are young, or you'll be paying for them when they are old. If you want to have a debate about welfare and other entitlements, we can do that, but this isn't the place. Welfare is a reality. So are school and property taxes. Pick your poison. If you don't pay for school, then the burden rests entirely on the parents, resulting in poorer education, more people on welfare, fewer capable individuals, and as a result, a weaker society.

It's all about priorities, folks.

[Dirty Name]

Existing in perpetuity, as you say, is not society's only compelling interest.

Nobody ever said it was.

[Dirty Name]

So why does the state have an interest in promoting childbirth?

I could make a case as to why maintaining a strong and growing population is in the state's interest, but that depends on many factors. Take the looming possibility of a war with China, for example. China has an advantage in numbers. Would we be nearly the superpower we are today if our population was merely a few million people? I think not.

But you are again focusing with laser-like intensity on childbirth alone. This is a mistake which I have repeatedly cautioned you on. I agree with you that childbirth is going to happen anyway (but only in heterosexual couples!) and that the state need not promote childbirth, per se.

What I have been saying all along is that society has an interest in promoting the stable family environment - for the purposes of RAISING children (as opposed to merely birthing them) and that doing so strengthens our society.

[ibm]

dirty, stop using words like "idiot" when debating me. otherwise i will stop and report you.

and like what a few others have observed, you seem to pick and choose your battles. you choose to avoid or ignore others' comments agaist your views that you seem unable to rebut.

also, stop just making a statement and claiming it as "basic stuff" or a fact. back it up with facts and logic. thought that's a universal and "basic" rule in every resaonable debate.

[Dirty Name]

dirty, stop using words like "idiot" when debating me. otherwise i will stop and report you. and like what a few others have observed, you seem to pick and choose your battles. you choose to avoid or ignore others' comments agaist your views that you seem unable to rebut. also, stop just making a statement and claiming it as "basic stuff" or a fact. back it up with facts and logic. thought that's a universal and "basic" rule in every resaonable debate.

I never called you an idiot, and I have no idea why you would be bothered by the word's usage in general terms.

I pick and choose my battles because in case you haven't noticed, I'm outnumbered here by about five to one - I can't possibly respond to every point. I respond in this priority:

1) Obvious or glaring errors in logic.
2) Arguments that I deem are most dangerous to my own if left unanswered.
3) Everything else, as time permits.

So, if you believe you have raised a salient point that I have not addressed, by all means let me know. I have no desire to let a point that you believe is valid go unanswered.

Finally, if you really got worked up about simple phrases like "basic stuff" then I'll try to remember to insert the phrase "In my humble opinion."

Thus, in my humble opinion, my comments about our roles in society really should be basic stuff that everyone understands.

[Osborn F Enready]

Dirty Name, if you would then in your most basic logic, explain this and how it fits into the Law, under the Constitution.....

The Constitution states all people shall be treated equally in the eyes of the law.
(gays are people)

The Constitution states that all taxes should be levied equally.
(they aren't, favoring religous concepts of marriage, man/woman)

The term marriage comes from religion, and has been applied to law in the same meaning.
(Unconstitutional)

There is no pre-written stipulation in law that couples must be capable to reproduce, to recieve unconstitutional tax benefits based on marriage.


Your concept of society management glaringly fails to prove why gays shouldn't receive benefits based on anything other than they can't reproduce naturally. Even though they work, pay and purchase as any other consumer would. You also fail to show why society management can't compensate for this provision. You fail to show why there is any justification for the current unconstitutional tax breaks other than "it's been that way" or your opinion about it being "beneficial".

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name Nobody ever said it was.

You acted as if it were. As if that were the only compelling interest to have marriages.

Quote by: Dirty Name If you don't pay for school, then the burden rests entirely on the parents, resulting in poorer education, more people on welfare, fewer capable individuals, and as a result, a weaker society.

Or maybe people will stop having children and counting on others to pay for them, resulting in fewer children being born into poverty and a more accountable population.

[belverron]

The Constitution states all people shall be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

BUT THEY ALREADY ARE EQUAL! COUPLES AREN'T EQUAL UNDER THE LAW! ONLY INDIVIDUALS!

Why do you bother?

[ibm]

Quote by: Dirty Name I never called you an idiot, ...

of course you didn't, just like i never called you an idiot either - imho.

i'm sorry if this adds nothing to the discussion.

[Dirty Name]

BUT THEY ALREADY ARE EQUAL! COUPLES AREN'T EQUAL UNDER THE LAW! ONLY INDIVIDUALS!

Thank you, Belverron. At least I finally know that someone understands the argument, even if they don't agree with it.