Homosexual Marriage

[Osborn F Enready]

After pages more of refutation by Dirty Name, I see he still can't produce ONE official link to this government societal organization concept.

You do know what an OFFICIAL LINK TO INFORMATION IS RIGHT?

It is not a bunch of your words, as you tried to use in your post AS a link.

It is a hyper-link, to an actual government DOCUMENT outlining what you CLAIM TO BE THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT.

[Dirty Name]

I don't know that you were quite right on that count. See the full article here.

Belverron, I give you credit for at least seeking answers on your own. I can't say the same for other folks on your side. That said, the article fails to prove that marriage is some kind of "magic bullet" to be used as the solution to promiscuity. Could the statistics cited in the article not just as easily be attributed to the fact that folks who get married tend to be more committed in the first place?

Also, after reading the article, it seems to be a scathing indictment of promiscuity in general, something which is almost a given in the homosexual community. After all, how many gay men or women "save themselves for marriage?" Doing so is viewed as an almost religious concept, something which homosexuals roundly reject in their call for gay marriage.

Finally, I can quote several folks from these very forums and this specific thread where they have claimed, "homosexuals already are married in every way except when it comes to benefits."

If true, it hardly makes the case that promiscuity would be reduced upon receipt of social security benefits or tax breaks. One has nothing to do with the other.

I still contend that promiscuity is not so much reduced by the fact of marriage as by the attitude that one brings to the marriage.

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: Prometheus That's my entire point. Marriage is fluidly defined - because it is defined by cultural norms. In that sence it is ridiculous for the government to make laws statically defining it.

In other words, you have no point. Because there are a number of laws defined by cultural norms. Should the government get out of defining the age of a legal adult? Our culture believes that age should be fixed at 18 years. Other cultures believe the age should be much younger. This is but one example of the government using "cultural norms" to craft a legal defintion.

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: Prometheus Wait - I'm in support of gay marriage. Also plural and incestuous marriage.

At least you reach the correct conclusion if you insist that gay marriage is equal to heterosexual marriage.

[Dirty Name]

After pages more of refutation by Dirty Name, I see he still can't produce ONE official link to this government societal organization concept. You do know what an OFFICIAL LINK TO INFORMATION IS RIGHT? It is not a bunch of your words, as you tried to use in your post AS a link. It is a hyper-link, to an actual government DOCUMENT outlining what you CLAIM TO BE THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT. You are not a debater, you are in denial.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

I'm sure you know the source of that. No link required. And now for how it ties in to my view point:

Our society elected representatives who passed tax laws which grant benefits to heterosexual married couples because our elected representatives believe that such measures advance the pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

You are, of course, free to disagree. But your singular view is but a grain of sand on the beach of public opinion, and arguing the legality of our tax laws in general does little to advance the notion of homosexual marriage - at best, it argues for an abolishment of any tax breaks whatsoever -something that not everyone on the side of homosexual marriage rights agrees with.

In view of the fact that you are arguing a point on the legality of federal tax law, I believe you could make the same case for any number of other issues, not just gay marriage. So why don't you start a new thread and we can debate your point of view there.

The reality of the situation, which you refuse to take into account, is that our tax code exists, has been vetted by our legislators and the courts, and isn't likely to be changed to your viewpoint any time soon. Thus, there is no point in continuing this discussion as it relates only to homosexual marriage.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Dirty Name Save one... they cannot produce offspring of their own, there is no female spouse who will experience pregnancy and the potential hardships thereof. There is no spouse who will be persuaded to sacrifice a career for the betterment of their children, simply as a product of consummating the marriage. With homosexuals, they can engage in sexual acts with one another all day long, and nothing will ever materialize that would have the same impact on them as a new child would have on a heterosexual couple. And because such children are the NATURAL product of the heterosexual relationship, our society has a compelling interest to ensure that mothers and fathers stay together to provide the best possible environment for their children.

You would have a point if the government required proof of fertility in order to recognize a marriage. They do not. There are plenty of infertile couples and couples that have no desire to have children that have govenment recognition of their marriage.

And my point all along is that gay couples don't have the SAME NEEDS as a heterosexual couple. Heterosexual couples with the potential to produce offspring require a great deal more from society and government than a homosexual couple.

You would have a point if you could not get government recognition of a marriage unless there were children. That is not the case.

I further argue, and have yet to be challenged, that a gay couple has no greater need than two non-sexual friends who have decided to live together and take care of one another. Thus, what's good for gays is good for anyone who declares they have the same needs.

Yes but two non-sexual friends of the opposite sex can get married and get govenment recognition of their marriage. Older people do it all the time.

Starboy

[Jack]

Because there are a number of laws defined by cultural norms. Should the government get out of defining the age of a legal adult? Our culture believes that age should be fixed at 18 years. Other cultures believe the age should be much younger. This is but one example of the government using "cultural norms" to craft a legal defintion.

This wasn't decided by a "cultural norm". Until 1972, the age of majority was 21. It was lowered that year in response to protests that noted that you could be drafted to go die in a foreign country at 18, but couldn't vote against the people sending you there until you were 21. It changed as a result of the demands of a minority that were in the right. There's nothing to stop gay marriage from following the same path.

[Dirty Name]

You would have a point if the government required proof of fertility in order to recognize a marriage. They do not. There are plenty of infertile couples and couples that have no desire to have children that have govenment recognition of their marriage.

I've addressed this already. The vast majority of couples are fertile. There is no need to weed out those who are not for several reasons:

1) The status of infertility is subject to change due to advances in medical science. Thus, many otherwise infertile couples still have the potential to become fertile.

2) It would require an invasion of privacy for the government to require fertility tests in the first place, and it would invade the privacy of a majority of people only to weed out a small handful of people - and for what purpose? To save the government a tiny fraction of a percent in federal tax revenue? It would cost more than it saved.

3) It is pointless to screen out those who wish to remain childless from marriage benefits. If "intent" were required before benefits were granted, any couple applying for benefits in the first place would necessarily be declaring their intent to have children, regardless of their true intentions.

4) Intent or ability to have children is subject to change, either due to attitude or medical advances. And the state has a compelling interest to ensure a strong marriage long before children enter the picture.

[Dirty Name]

You would have a point if you could not get government recognition of a marriage unless there were children. That is not the case.

For the umpteenth time, children are NOT the sole compelling interest the government has in heterosexual marriage. The sacrifices of the spouses, particularly the female, play an enormous role - even if she ultimately fails to produce children. Consider a woman who has a great career, who finds herself pregnant. Halfway through the pregnancy she has a miscarriage. It happens again a year later. This time, the doctor tells her she should quit her job and take it easy so that she might carry the baby to term. She does, but she still has a miscarriage. She has sacrificed her career in the attempt to have a child. These are things that we take for granted in this society - that without such sacrifices, many of us would not be here, and those that are have better lives because of those sacrifices by our parents.

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: Isherwood This wasn't decided by a "cultural norm". Until 1972, the age of majority was 21. It was lowered that year in response to protests that noted that you could be drafted to go die in a foreign country at 18, but couldn't vote against the people sending you there until you were 21. It changed as a result of the demands of a minority that were in the right. There's nothing to stop gay marriage from following the same path.

You might consider that the majority opinion is the reason why the law was set at 21 and that a change in that opinion is what prompted the law to be changed. No one argued that 18 year olds already had a right to vote. LIkely because they realized that, if the 18 year olds already had a right to vote, how could exluding six year olds be fair?

Also, while the topic might be "Homosexual Marriages," we aren't debating homosexual marriage. The debate is over same-sex marriages. There is no sexual preference test that determines whether a person is allowed to marry or not. There is no one who has been denied marriage on account of their sexuality. It is not as if there haven't been homosexuals who have married. Have you ever heard anyone shocked that a homosexual was allowed to marry?

Quote by: Starboy Yes but two non-sexual friends of the opposite sex can get married and get govenment recognition of their marriage. Older people do it all the time.

Certainly. But how many people do that? There are so many things that go wrong that most would not consider it. Marriage is a legal union intended for raising children and people who use it for other purposes are very likely to be harmed by trying it. The law doesn't have to paint checkerboards to do the job it is intended to do, drawing one line in the sand is enough if where it is set is well thought out. Establishing alternative types of marriage as equal to the current definition could only serve to make marriage unsuitable for what it is now intended.

Not to mention the unjustifiable unfairness of the same-sex marriage arguement--giving two people legal rights on the account of nothing except claiming to have sex with each other while denying those benefits to people who may need them just as much or more but who are unwilling to register as sexual partners.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Dirty Name For the umpteenth time, children are NOT the sole compelling interest the government has in heterosexual marriage. The sacrifices of the spouses, particularly the female, play an enormous role - even if she ultimately fails to produce children.

All of that applies to a homo couple.

Consider a woman who has a great career, who finds herself pregnant. Halfway through the pregnancy she has a miscarriage. It happens again a year later. This time, the doctor tells her she should quit her job and take it easy so that she might carry the baby to term. She does, but she still has a miscarriage. She has sacrificed her career in the attempt to have a child. These are things that we take for granted in this society - that without such sacrifices, many of us would not be here, and those that are have better lives because of those sacrifices by our parents.

There are hetero couples that get sterilized. They have no intention of having children. Should they not be allowed to have government recognition of their marriage because they do not even pretend to reproduce?

It is very simple. As long as there are hetero couples who can't, won't or don't have children that have government recognition of their marriages then there is no reason to not have government recognition of gay marriage. Either change the laws to reflect that marriage is indeed about reproduction or recognize that it is also about two people who want to be a family of two and gay couples qualify.

Starboy

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name And now to answer Belverron's lingering question about what the difference is between a married heterosexual couple vs. a male and female living together:

Not my question.

Quote by: Dirty Name However, if "any two consenting adults" can marry, but incestuous couples are excluded from this, then homosexual couples AND heterosexual couples are granted "special rights." I left off the heterosexual component because it is gays who are apparently seeking those special right for both parties. Get it now?

I have outlined the reasons I do not believe incestuous marriage is a threat to our society, and by your reasoning putting monogamous relationships on a pedestal is no greater crime than putting heterosexual ones there.

Also, after reading the article, it seems to be a scathing indictment of promiscuity in general, something which is almost a given in the homosexual community. After all, how many gay men or women "save themselves for marriage?" Doing so is viewed as an almost religious concept, something which homosexuals roundly reject in their call for gay marriage.

I wonder why homosexuals don't save themselves for marriage.

Homosexuals are promiscuous "almost as a given"? That's bullshit. Young men have promiscuous tendencies, "almost as a given". In normal society, however, at least it is possible to wait for marriage. My argument is not that marriage is a magic promiscuity killer, but I do believe it provides a framework for a long-term relationship which reduces promiscuity. It doesn't help that the church (which, as you referenced, is one of the main proponents of waiting until marriage) has largely abandoned homosexuals to their sin. Homosexuals are forced to find new social and spiritual frameworks which may or may not discourage promiscuity.

So does homosexuality cause promiscuity? I doubt it. Does society's current treatment of homosexuality have an impact in that area? Undoubtedly.

Quote by: Dirty Name I still contend that promiscuity is not so much reduced by the fact of marriage as by the attitude that one brings to the marriage.

Perhaps that attitude is difficult to achieve without something like marriage to look toward, to anticipate.

*edit* You condescending bastard.

[italiangm]

Quote by: belverron You condescending bastard.

Hey now. That's totally uncalled for. Cut it out.

[Dirty Name]

They have no intention of having children. Should they not be allowed to have government recognition of their marriage because they do not even pretend to reproduce?

In that case, where it is totally obvious and there is no pretense of hiding it, perhaps.

[Dirty Name]

I have outlined the reasons I do not believe incestuous marriage is a threat to our society, and by your reasoning putting monogamous relationships on a pedestal is no greater crime than putting heterosexual ones there.

Except you forget my point that heterosexual marriage is ALREADY on a pedestal, due to the fact that they are capable of producing offspring.

[Dirty Name]

As long as there are hetero couples who can't, won't or don't have children that have government recognition of their marriages then there is no reason to not have government recognition of gay marriage.

Of your couples who "can't, won't or don't" have children, the ONLY category of couple where it is both possible and practical to refuse marriage benefits for would be those in your previous example who have willingly declared that they do not intend to have children, then back that up by getting sterilized.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Dirty Name Of your couples who "can't, won't or don't" have children, the ONLY category of couple where it is both possible and practical to refuse marriage benefits for would be those in your previous example who have willingly declared that they do not intend to have children, then back that up by getting sterilized.

There are hetero couples that are married with no children that have sterilized themselves. There is nothing in the law that says that they can't be married and sterilized. It is not as if the law concerning marriage is all about procreation. Most of it has to do with other matters.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: Dirty Name In that case, where it is totally obvious and there is no pretense of hiding it, perhaps.

If you think that then you should be more concerned with changing the law so that it reflects marriages role in procreation rather then excluding homosexual unions. If the law for marriage only allowed procreating couples to be married then homosexuals would automatically be excluded as well as older people and people who have been in terrible accidents or have suffered from certain diseases and so forth. Why aren't you arguing for that case? Argue for what should be required for marriage rather then argue for what should be excluded. What is the point of arguing for what should be excluded when it is not clear what should be included?

Starboy

[belverron]

Clearly I can't participate in this debate right now. I'm getting tired of all the "of course you'll understand my position now, you foolish boy" remarks by Dirty Name, so perhaps I'll check in on it at a later date.

[Dirty Name]

If you think that then you should be more concerned with changing the law so that it reflects marriages role in procreation rather then excluding homosexual unions.

I don't necessarily think that. If agreeing to that would protect marriage as we know it today, I might consider it.