Homosexual Marriage

[Dirty Name]

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

There is no "acting," there is only text. If you read what I wrote, I have been pretty consistent with my message here.

[Dirty Name]

Even though they work, pay and purchase as any other consumer would.

Why are gays so special then? What is the difference between a gay couple and two apartment mates in New York City? In order to be consistent, you are going to have to argue that any two people should be able to qualify for benefits. Forget gays! There's absolutely nothing magic about having anal intercourse or whatever it is that lesbians do... any two people who work, pay and purchase as any other consumers would should qualify for benefits using your logic.

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name There is no "acting," there is only text. If you read what I wrote, I have been pretty consistent with my message here.

I was trying to point out that marriage serves purposes other than child-rearing. Your message seems very constrained to me.

[Dirty Name]

I have said that as well. But child-rearing is the central component.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: belverron I was trying to point out that marriage serves purposes other than child-rearing.

Quote by: Dirty Name I have said that as well. But child-rearing is the central component.

Completely disagree. The central component is partnership. The kids are born, raised and move out to an independent life. Marriage is about a lifetime partner.

Funny, because I agree with most of your positions, Dirty. I agree that kids do better in a family with both a mom and a dad. I am not in favor of homosexual marriage, but my reason is that it is an attempt to redefine a traditional concept that already has a definition.

Nevertheless, you argue well and have made some points. But to me, my marriage is about partnership. My wife has never been pregnant, and we have been married 21 years. We never planned for her to have children. And I don't agree that society's compelling interest in traditional marriage is about enforcing an ideal situation for any kids that might come along. Society can't guarantee kids anything. I think your argument is a tangent.

[Dirty Name]

Completely disagree. The central component is partnership. The kids are born, raised and move out to an independent life. Marriage is about a lifetime partner. Funny, because I agree with most of your positions, Dirty. I agree that kids do better in a family with both a mom and a dad. I am not in favor of homosexual marriage, but my reason is that it is an attempt to redefine a traditional concept that already has a definition. Nevertheless, you argue well and have made some points. But to me, my marriage is about partnership. My wife has never been pregnant, and we have been married 21 years. We never planned for her to have children. And I don't agree that society's compelling interest in traditional marriage is about enforcing an ideal situation for any kids that might come along. Society can't guarantee kids anything. I think your argument is a tangent.

Marriage is certainly about partnership as well. But we aren't talking about marriage as a whole here. We are talking about the state's legal recognition of marriage and the purpose thereof.

From a religious or moral standpoint, I completely understand and admire your committment to your relationship, regardless of whether or not you have children. But you simply must step back and take a look at marriage from a top down viewpoint - not bottom up as everyone seems to be doing here.

From the government's point of view, your marriage has the potential to produce offspring. The government doesn't have the time or budget to ask whether or not you intend to have children. I suspect if most couples were asked that question by a federal agency prior to getting married, their answer would be, "Gee, we don't know yet. We think we want children, but we just don't know."

Such a preposterous government intrustion into our privacy is further complicated by the fact that pregnancy often occurs whether a couple plans for it or not. Thus, intent is irrelevant to outcome. My point is that from the government's point of view, your marriage is a potential child-producing one.

But hypothetically speaking, if the government knew from the start that your relationship was guaranteed to be childless, then tell me - what possible interest would the government have in your relationship at all? The answer is none. The government has zero stake in that partnership. Such a relationship is no different in the government's eyes than two roommates sharing an apartment and declaring a partnership. All of the needs of that particular arrangement can be met by a private contract without any government intervention whatsoever, and the fact that two people have joined in the partnership doesn't benefit the government in any way whatsoever.

The opposite is true of any marriage between heterosexual people with the potential to produce offspring. In such a partnership, a child is imminently possible, and such offspring represent a compelling interest by the government.

Finally, in the government's view, childbirth is the only thing that makes your relationship different from any other partnership of two people. Love, sexuality and committment are private matters and irrelevant from a government perspective.

[ibm]

we the married, add more benefits to society - compared to those of you who aren't and those of you who are homos. we can reproduce humankind, you know? those un-married, although you can reproduce, but you ain't married, evern though some of you live in the same house; those homos, you're married but you can't breed. therefore when we get married, we deserve more social benefits.

better yet, for the rest of you, you'd better pay for our offspring when we produce one or two. you'd pay sooner or later, and better sooner than later. if you don't, our kids are likely going to become problem for the society when they grow up. for the common good of our society, you'd better pay for us.

what? equality? it never exists. even if it does, it only applies to individuals. and we're talking about couples here. hmmm, couples. do you understand?

...

(ps - me married a human opposite to my own sex and we have reproduced one human.)

[Dirty Name]

we the married, add more benefits to society - compared to those of you who aren't and those of you who are homos. we can reproduce humankind, you know? those un-married, although you can reproduce, but you ain't married, evern though some of you live in the same house; those homos, you're married but you can't breed. therefore when we get married, we deserve more social benefits. better yet, for the rest of you, you'd better pay for our offspring when we produce one or two. you'd pay sooner or later, and better sooner than later. if you don't, our kids are likely going to become problem for the society when they grow up. for the common good of our society, you'd better pay for us. what? equality? it never exists. even if it does, it only applies to individuals. and we're talking about couples here. hmmm, couples. do you understand? ... (ps - me married a human opposite to my own sex and we have reproduced one human.)

Two can play at that game...

Hi, my name is Tom and I live in an apartment with another guy named Bob. We are totally heterosexual, we even have girlfriends from time to time, but we'd never, ever, get married because that kind of committment scares the crap out of us. We both have good paying jobs, and we're just really good friends. We aren't homosexuals and there is nothing romantic between us.

But you see, there's something that bothers me. Why should we pay for public school if we don't have any kids? I don't know who paid for my public school, and I don't really care. If people without kids paid for my school back in the 1970's and 1980's, that's their problem. I shouldn't have to pay if I don't get the same tax break as a married couple.

I just don't think it's fair that heterosexual married couples get a married tax break, while people sharing an apartment get nothing. Me and Bob live together and we think we should get the same tax break too. That's why we formed a partnership and we are now demanding our fair share of the pie.

Who cares if statistics show that married couples contribute more to the income tax system? They still shouldn't get any kind of break whatsoever. There is no benefit to being married - it's purely religious in my opinion.

So even though the existence of our partnership contributes NOTHING to society, we demand the same treatment that married couples get.

In fact, our idea is totally fair and equitable, because everyone can qualify for a married tax break. We'll just rename it the "partnership tax break." The only requirement is that you have to find a friend to form a "partnership" with. It could be anyone. There's no committment required, you don't have to be in love or be sexual in anyway. Just find a friend and you qualify for the tax break! Cool huh?
_____________

Yeah. That makes perfect sense and would have a real positive impact on the institution of marriage as we know it today. Great idea.

[Athena]

[quote=Dirty Name]

Why should we pay for public school if we don't have any kids?

We once understood the reason everyone pays taxes to educate all children, is because this is how to have good citizens, who do not commit crimes and do not become dependent on others. Mind you, until rather recently schools were too poor to give books to everyone, and it was important for children to work than by in school. An awful lot was going against the effort to educate children.

When we mobilized for the first world war, industry attempted to close public schools, claiming the war caused a labor shortage and that they were not getting their monies worth from public education, because they still had to train employees. Until 1917, education was not about vocational training. That was added to appease industry. Had industry had its way, not only would schools have been closed, but the new child labor laws would have been ended and we have returned to manning industry with 11 year old boys, as some poor countries today, use child labor for industry. This child labor is actually a form of slavery that robs children of any future other than bare existance as cheap laborers.

It was the 1830's before we got serious about free public education for all children. Teachers based their argue to keep schools open, on the decison made in the 1830's to use public education for citizenship training and thereby prevent the rioting and other criminal acts that had become common place when our young democracy was flooded by immigrants who didn't understand our democracy and unique relationship with our institutions. They argued, an institution that can make good citizens, can make patriot citizens. If it had not been for our public school system, mobilizing us for WWI and WWII, it is doubtful we could have done what we did in two world wars. Adding vocational education to this education, increased the number of parents willing to send their children to school, so they had a chance for a better future.

WITHOUT OUR PRESENT FREE PUBLIC EDUCATION WE WOULD HAVE THE POVERTY CONDITIONS OF INDIA. OUR NATION WOULD NOT BE SO GREAT. IN FACT, GIVEN OUR GENERAL LACK OF CULTURE TODAY, WE WOULD HAVE THE POVERTY CONDITIONS OF HIATI. I HOPE THIS CHANGES YOUR MIND OF WHY IT IS NECESSARY TO COLLECT TAXES FROM EVERYONE AND EDUCATE ALL CHILDREN. HOWEVER, WE NEED TO RETURN TO EDUCATION FOR CITIZEN TO GET THE ORIGINAL BENEFIT FROM PUBLIC EDUCATION.

[Dirty Name]

No argument from me. I hope you understand that my post which you quoted was pure sarcasm in response to someone else...

[PatrickHenry]

Off topic about public school, Athena. I kinda went off, too, but try to remember the title of the thread...

[Dirty Name]

It's related, because someone else brought it up in the context of why people without children (i.e. homosexual couples) have to pay for the education of other's children.

[PatrickHenry]

I brought it up, too, but I didn't expound on it for the entire post, Dirty. This thread needs to stay sorta focussed on the title issue...

[Dirty Name]

OK, you're right. Athena should have at least tied in in.

[Osborn F Enready]

Regardless, without equality in law, there is nobody going to respect the law. Look around and you will see that as every subsequent generation is more disenfranchised, they disrespect the law more.

The public schooling issue is and has been discussed in other threads, I was pointing out the fact that there are many who disagree with "so-called" popular or "normal" pre-suppositions by some in here.

There is no difference in couples, or individuals. Couples are TWO individuals. They have the same rights as an individual. This is a poppy-cock argument set up to lure away from the fact that rights ARE THE BASIS FOR OUR LAWS, and are INALIENABLE.

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: 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)

Gays aren't being treated any differently than anyone else is. There is nothing about being single that marks a person as being gay. If gays are being mistreated, explain how they are being singled out. It is ridiculus to keep repeating the same failed rhetoric. The law is completely impartial towards people regardless of sexual preference.

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

Where does the Constitution say this at? And even it did, taxes are not being levelled unequally. Being equal doesn't just mean exactly the same. It also means being impartial/unbiased/fair.

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

I'm not quite sure what this means...

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

The exclusion of people who don't fit that requirement eliminated the need to spell it out any more clearly. Certainly no one was confused on this issue 200 hundred years ago.

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".

Unconstitutional because? What would be the point of giving any couple benefits? Are you suggesting that marriage was created and that benefits were added based on marriage for no reason whatsoever? If not, then what was the rationale for creating marriage in the first place?

Regardless, without equality in law, there is nobody going to respect the law. Look around and you will see that as every subsequent generation is more disenfranchised, they disrespect the law more.

You might at least consider the insanity being touted as rational thinking as a prime contributing factor.

The public schooling issue is and has been discussed in other threads, I was pointing out the fact that there are many who disagree with "so-called" popular or "normal" pre-suppositions by some in here. There is no difference in couples, or individuals. Couples are TWO individuals. They have the same rights as an individual. This is a poppy-cock argument set up to lure away from the fact that rights ARE THE BASIS FOR OUR LAWS, and are INALIENABLE.

Couples are not the same as individuals. If a couple is two individuals.how can there be no difference between a couple and an individual? Isn't one of the conerstones of Libertarian philosophy that the rights of a group come from the rights of the individuals that make up that group?

The fact of the matter is that marriage isn't result of mindless, random, natural processes. It is a man-made institution that was created by deliberate human action. Deliberate human action by defenition must have some purpose, some goal.

Why is it so hard to offer some possible social benefit as a reason for same-sex marriages?

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name The law is completely impartial towards people regardless of sexual preference.

In many places you can be fired--legally--purely for your sexual orientation.

[mr.perfecto]

In some places you can be fired for wearing a pink bow tie...what has either got to do with marriage? Where is your presumption of liberty there? It's not as if there is a law saying people with certain sexualities must not be employed.


Quote from me btw.

[Pale Tundra]

In some places you can be fired for wearing a pink bow tie...what has either got to do with marriage?

Or rights, for that matter.

[Dirty Name]

In many places you can be fired--legally--purely for your sexual orientation.

Belverron, I didn't say the quote you referenced. That was Mr. Perfecto.