Homosexual Marriage

[MadKatz]

All couples better know that when they take on children, they still gotta pay for them even when they decide to stop sharing ceremonial titles. I saw a case where a same sex couple had a child, divorced and suddeny there was no confusion about who was mom but there was some confusion about who was dad. The kid still needs food, clothes and school.

Other than that, who gives a flippin hell over it?

[Dirty Name]

Dirty Name, I see no point in debating you any further. You do not accept fact, nor do you provide it when asked to verify your sources or opinions. You pick and choose your debate, only backing your position when it fits.

OK. Keep kidding yourself. But let the record reflect that you attempted to focus this debate on the legality of income tax and it's relation to marriage benefits. I chose not to respond to your argument because I don't have time to debate things that don't matter. You said yourself that somebody proved his case regarding income tax, yet still pays his tax bills every year. Isn't that proof positive that you are beating your head against a brick wall? My point is that there is zero point in debating income tax as it relates to the homosexual marriage issue because the income tax is here to stay in one form or another. Get over it already.

So, regardless of whether your position on income tax is right or wrong, it is irrelevant to our debate because your viewpoint is not the reality we are dealing with.

That said, you NEVER ONCE attempted to answer my direct question on what the difference is between a gay couple and two straight women living in an apartment.

So before you go pointing fingers at others, you might want to take a look at yourself. Whenever I see someone refusing to debate any further - particularly after a direct question was asked (repeatedly), I've learned that it typically means that the person knows he can't answer the question without trapping himself or otherwise doing further damage to his position.

Too bad for you the record of our debate will always be here for people to see that you gave up without really debating the core premise of my argument.

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: Waychel Quote by: Waychel What Starboy can't seem to grasp is that if we award the federal recognition of marriage to homosexuals on the grounds of "equal representation" within the very definition of marriage (what this debate is about), then we must award the same "right" to all other forms of marriage on the same grounds. This means that polygamist marriage among others will need to be recognized on a federal level. Marriage law would need to change and the priveledges of federally recognized marriage (joint tax returns, social security benefits) that homosexuals want would dissapear. That is what I find fallacious about the whole thing. If we represent homosexuals within the definition of marriage under the grounds of "equal representation", then ALL forms of marriage or lifestyle MUST be entitled to "equal representation" as well. Saying that, "Homosexual marriages would be recognized and that is all. No impact would be made upon the country's institution and treatment of marriage." is not only wrong, but a total lie.

Quote by: Starboy And what Waychel doesn't seem to grasp is that denying any group their rights because it would be legislatively inconvenient and oh my gosh, it just might give some other groups their rights as well is no better an argument than saying that the Jim Crow laws should stay on the books because there would not be enough bathrooms if blacks were now allowed to use them. It is specious and has nothing to do with the basic issues.

Starboy, I hate to dig this up from six months ago, but I couldn't resist.

It seems that you are basically arguing here that you don't really want benefits to be extended to homosexual couples, but rather you just want to strip traditionally married couples of their benefits so that everyone is "equal." Am I correct?

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name Too bad for you the record of our debate will always be here for people to see that you gave up without really debating the core premise of my argument.

Ignoring distractions from the real debate is hardly giving up.

You've offered up an opinion on what you think the role of government should be in marriage. After repeated requests from several participants for government references/evidence to support your argument, we've yet to see any.

Since you've failed to live up to your obligation to support your "core premise", I fail to see why any of us should feel obligated to extend a reframing opportunity to you. It appears others are beginning to wise up to your scheme and are refusing to participate as well.

You get as good as you give.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Dirty Name Starboy, I hate to dig this up from six months ago, but I couldn't resist.

Oh really, you actually hate it?

It seems that you are basically arguing here that you don't really want benefits to be extended to homosexual couples, but rather you just want to strip traditionally married couples of their benefits so that everyone is "equal." Am I correct?

That was a long time ago but IIRC the argument against homosexual marriage was the cost and effort that would be needed to be expended to change the laws so they could accommodate homosexual marriage. I called that argument specious for two reasons:

1) The law already handles the case of a couple that can't have children naturally. All such laws could just as well be applied to homosexual couples with little to no modification.

2) If the law is wrong, as in the case of the Jim Crow laws, then arguing that such laws should stay in place because it would cause such a great difficulty to remove, such as more bathrooms or whatever, was a stupid argument. Likewise arguing that heterosexual marriage should not be granted the same rights under the law because of the difficulties it would cause is an equally stupid argument.

Starboy

[Dirty Name]

So is that a "yes"? Sheesh. I asked a simple question.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Dirty Name So is that a "yes"? Sheesh. I asked a simple question.

Dirty Name, is your name really Dirty Tricks? You dredge up that old post so I explained it to you. My explanation is that it has nothing to do with your question. I have stated on numerous occasions both on this thread and others that I am for equal treatment under the law. If society sees the need to pass laws streamlining the arrangement of marriage and extends it to hetero couples then it should do so for homo couples. As to the question, "Should the government recognize marriage?" Then the answer is yes… but. The devil is always in the details and exactly what comes with that recognition. It is not as if the government is not already poking its nose into way too many family matters as it is.

Starboy

[Dirty Name]

To Osborn and Italiangm:

You both have now attempted to implement the lamest debate tactic of all - ignoring my own questions, then asking one of your own - and after not getting an answer after a short delay - you accuse me of "refusing to provide evidence to support my position."

So without further delay, I hereby respond to the one question you have asked lately that I have yet to answer:

Quote by: italiangm You've offered up an opinion on what you think the role of government should be in marriage. After repeated requests from several participants for government references/evidence to support your argument, we've yet to see any.

Quote by: osborn f. enready Where is the outline regarding society regulation through government? Can you show me ANYTHING pertaining to any official concept or practice of society management as the type you speak of, through the marriage tax break? NO.

Italiangm, when you say that I think the government should play a certain role in the regulation of marriage, it seems to be a convenient attempt to ignore the devastating fact that it already does play that role.

Your request for other examples which would support my contention that the government's purpose for marriage benefits is not religious, but is rather an attempt at social engineering, seems a bit odd to me, because the answer seems so painfully obvious.

I can name any number of areas where the government offers incentives so that citizens act or behave in a certain way. The entire federal tax code is riddled with such examples - tax breaks for buying a house that requires rehabilitation act as an incentive by sweetening the pot for potential investors. Farm subsidies encourage farmers to grow a particular type of crop. Tax breaks are given to folks who invest their money in a certain way. Tax breaks are given to encourage people to pursue education or vocational training. Enormous tax breaks are given to those who adopt, which acts as an incentive. It seems fairly obvious that federal marriage benefits easily fall into this same category.

Most damaging to your argument, however, is the fact that marriage benefits for heterosexual couples exist in the first place. They didn't just magically appear - they were inserted into the tax code for a reason. Osborn has contended that they are there for religious reasons. Yet he doesn't offer a single shred of evidence to support this claim, despite condemning me for the same reason. Instead, he points to the fact that wedding ceremonies are traditionally religious in nature. This fact in and of itself is meaningless. If Osborn were to sue the federal government on these grounds he would be laughed out of the court room. Religion is not required or even considered by the federal government when issuing a marriage license or granting marriage related benefits.

So in conclusion, it is clear that our federal government recognizes heterosexual marriage for a reason, and that reason has nothing to do with religion. I have offered a secular reason as to why the federal government recognizes heterosexual married couples and bestows federal benefits upon them. And it is clear that a secular reason MUST exist, for we all agree that religious grounds would be inadequate. Thus, I have offered a valid secular argument to support the existence of the law. Because such a secular reason exists, you cannot simply dismiss it by saying that's not THE reason without first offering an alternative explanation.

You have attempted to dismiss the secular logic not by offering an alternative explanation but instead by stating I'm not answering your questions. I believe I have done so. If something remains unanswered, by all means, bring it to my attention. I am aware that I owe Belverron a response, which I intend to get to.

But I now respectfully request that you answer MY question, which has been dangling out there for, oh, five pages or so without anyone willing to respond:

What is the difference, in the eyes of the government, between a gay couple and two straight women who want to be recognized as a partnership?

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: Starboy You dredge up that old post so I explained it to you. My explanation is that it has nothing to do with your question.

I see the problem now:

That was a long time ago but IIRC the argument against homosexual marriage was the cost and effort that would be needed to be expended to change the laws so they could accommodate homosexual marriage.

The fact is, you don't recall correctly. The original post by Wachel had little to do with the specific costs of extending benefits to gays, but everything to do with her contention that if gay couples are recognized by the federal government, then there will be no limit to who else could qualify for federal benefits. As a result, the entire tax code would need to be re-written to accomodate every imaginable combination of "spouses." Imagine the social security nightmare resulting from the death of an Mormon man with seven wives. Or the death of a single wife among several. Who gets the benefits? Are the women only married to the husband, or to each other as well?

The point is twofold:

1) Recognizing gay marriage isn't as simple as saying "gays deserve equal treatment." I will challenge you to an excercise to prove my point at the bottom of this post...

2) If gays are recognized by the government with a change in marriage law, then federal benefits such as tax breaks and social security benefits would likely cease to exist, rendering moot the entire effort by homosexuals to receive these benefits, and leaving them right back at square one, with the single exception that no one gets such benefits. That is the source of my original question to you - would you be satisfied if the federal government just stripped marriage benefits from everyone?

OK. Now for the "gays deserve equal treatment" exercise. Please write a new definition of marriage - to be used by the federal government to determine who is qualified to receive tax breaks, social security survivor benefits, and to determine who would have legal standing to bring suit in matters related to marriage. Also, be sure to include what is required to get married in the first place, if you would make any changes to those laws.

[Starboy]

Dirty Name, I'm not playing this game. You take a post out of context and twist it and then you want me to defend it. Sorry.

Starboy

[Dirty Name]

Starboy, you were the one who took Wachel's original post of out of context in the first place. I'm just trying to get you back on track. I'd appreciate it if instead of flippantly dismissing an argument, you'd actually explain what you mean when you say I took your comments out of context.

But no matter. Forget her original post. Forget what I said about it. I'd be just as happy if you could address the very last paragraph of my last post, quoted here:

Quote by: Me Please write a new definition of marriage - to be used by the federal government to determine who is qualified to receive tax breaks, social security survivor benefits, and to determine who would have legal standing to bring suit in matters related to marriage. Also, be sure to include what is required to get married in the first place, if you would make any changes to those laws.

That's a reasonable request, considering it's the very core of our debate.

[Starboy]

For those definitions that say between a man and a woman just change it to read between two consenting adults. A homo couple is identical to an infertile hetero couple and the current law deals with that situation just fine.

Starboy

[Dirty Name]

For those definitions that say between a man and a woman just change it to read between two consenting adults. A homo couple is identical to an infertile hetero couple and the current law deals with that situation just fine.

How is this treating Mormon's equally? Are you opposed to polygamy? On what basis do you outlaw marriages to multiple spouses, and how is that reasoning and logic any different from the logic used to exclude homosexual marriages now? And of course, your definition fails to address the status of incestuous couples - do you allow any two consenting adults to marry, or do you maintain the current restrictions on incest? And what about homosexual inscest where there is no chance of offspring?

[Starboy]

I didn't bring up polygamy. It was Waychel. This is why I do not appreciate you taking very old posts out of context. My discussion is about the problem at hand. Gay couples that want government recognition of their marriage. I am not aware of any gay polygamists asking for government recognition of their marriages. Not am I aware of people trying to stop specifically gay polygamy. It is a red herring. It is not a very honest way to debate. It is a Dirty Tactic.

Starboy

[Dirty Name]

I am not aware of any gay polygamists asking for government recognition of their marriages. Not am I aware of people trying to stop specifically gay polygamy. It is a red herring. It is not a very honest way to debate.

Whether you are aware of something or not is totally irrelevant. What I am asking is whether or not your definition of marriage seeks to exclude these types of "marriages." Throughout your 3735 post "career" here on Volconvo, I've noticed that you often resort to the accusation of intellectual dishonesty whenever you get pushed into a corner. It happened earlier this year with Mr. Perfecto as well as Waychel when similar questions were asked.

If you aren't prepared to answer them, you probably shouldn't be here debating this subject in the first place. Thank you for your incomplete opinion on this matter. Will someone with a COMPLETE answer please pick up the gay marriage banner and attempt to advance it into the onslaught of questions which Starboy has refused to address?

I'll be here waiting. In the meantime, score one for traditional marriage.

[Dirty Name]

I didn't bring up polygamy. It was Waychel. This is why I do not appreciate you taking very old posts out of context.

My point exactly. Waychel brought it up, and you answered her totally out of context, completely ignoring the questions she asked. So it was YOU, Starboy, who took the discussion off track and out of context. Just because you don't wish to address a glaring weakness in your argument doesn't mean it will just go away.

You are not an ostrich.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Dirty Name Whether you are aware of something or not is totally irrelevant. What I am asking is whether or not your definition of marriage seeks to exclude these types of "marriages." Throughout your 3735 post "career" here on Volconvo, I've noticed that you often resort to the accusation of intellectual dishonesty whenever you get pushed into a corner. It happened earlier this year with Mr. Perfecto as well as Waychel when similar questions were asked. If you aren't prepared to answer them, you probably shouldn't be here debating this subject in the first place. Thank you for your incomplete opinion on this matter. Will someone with a COMPLETE answer please pick up the gay marriage banner and attempt to advance it into the onslaught of questions which Starboy has refused to address? I'll be here waiting. In the meantime, score one for traditional marriage.

You asked how I would modify the current definition of marriage. I did so. Then you dragged polygamy into it based on Waychel's post not mine and asked me to account for my lack of including it and now you accuse me of being intellectually dishonest? Get real. When are you going to ask me, 'Have you stopped beating your wife?'. So far you are doing a very good job of being intellectually dishonest.

Starboy

[Dirty Name]

Starboy, what I am doing is taking your mantra of "equal treatment" and asking you in an intellectually honest way if your definition of equal treatment includes polygamy and incest.

So does it or not? This really isn't that hard of a question to answer, unless you know where I'm going with it and don't want to trap yourself.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Dirty Name My point exactly. Waychel brought it up, and you answered her totally out of context, completely ignoring the questions she asked. So it was YOU, Starboy, who took the discussion off track and out of context. Just because you don't wish to address a glaring weakness in your argument doesn't mean it will just go away. You are not an ostrich.

This is getting ridiculous. I ignored Waychels comments about polygamy because they were a diversion by Waychel from the argument at hand. You took the post out of context. Also if I didn't address polygamy in that post why are you asking me to do so now? Why do I have to address polygamy? This thread is about gay marriage. What screw ball trick are you up to now?

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: Dirty Name Starboy, what I am doing is taking your mantra of "equal treatment" and asking you in an intellectually honest way if your definition of equal treatment includes polygamy and incest. So does it or not? This really isn't that hard of a question to answer, unless you know where I'm going with it and don't want to trap yourself.

At this time polygamy has eqaul treatment. No one can get recognition of a polygamous marriage from the government. I do not care to discuss polygamy. That is a different topic. Stop derailing this thread. If you want to discuss polygamy then start another thread.

Starboy