Homosexual Marriage

[mr.perfecto]

Because we have HOV lanes for carpoolers, must we dedicate another lane for people who are running late for work? Of course, I would be the one pointing out that the point of having a HOV lane in the first place is to encourage carpooling. So I'd just tell them to bug off. But what about you? Maybe it is a good idea, maybe it isn't, but if you use a civil-rights, liberty-based argument to get your running late for work lane, when the "my kids are driving me crazy" group comes along you have to give them a lane also.

Having taken that step back, I can see that the purpose of marriage determined its form. :) No having any one thing doesn't open the doors for everything. Seperating the thing from its purpose does that.

[Starboy]

Quote by: mr.perfecto Actually what they are saying is that the current marriage laws are unfair and basing that opinion on a civil rights/liberty based argument. It amounts to the same thing as demand other types of marriage. What argument will SSM supporters offer when Other Types of Marriage supporters make their demands?

They are not asking for government recognition of polygamy, or incest or unions with animals. Just government recognition of two person life long commitments. Something the government is already doing. But for some very strange reason opponents seem to think that gays are asking for all those other types of marriage when they are not. They just want the same government recognition that heteros can already get for the same kind of marriage.

Starboy

[Dirty Name]

This is the fallacy. Gays are not asking for a different kind of marriage.

WHAT??? Of course they are. They are asking that the very definition of marriage be changed to accomodate them. How is that not different? If gays wanted the SAME kind of marriage, they'd just shut up and marry a person of the opposite sex. That's what marriage is - a lifelong partnership with a person of the opposite sex, where procreation is not only possible, but highly likely.

Gays want something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. They want to enjoy the exact same benefits, but they don't wish to marry someone with whom they can have children. It's completely different. Your argument, Starboy, is the fallacy.

Take that same argument back a step; by allowing any type of marriage, if we are truly fair, haven't we opened the doors to every other type of union? In other words, the hetros started it, we're just wanting to join in.

My point all along is that not all forms of marriage are "equal" to one another. Heterosexual couples are the most likely arrangement under which a child would be raised by his/her biological parents. Society has a compelling interest in trying to make sure the maximum number of children are cared for by the people responsible for bringing them into the world in the first place. Marriage is an institution designed to do just that. Thus, society (and by extension, government) has a compelling interest in promoting traditional heterosexual marriage.

Can someone please name for me the compelling government interest in legally recognizing homosexual marriage?

[Dirty Name]

That for some strange reason the government is not willing (but is able) to recognize the life long commitment of a gay couple but will do it for a hetero couple only. It is unconstitutional. It is as unconstitutional as not giving the same treatment to women as men or blacks as whites.

You are trying to project the concept of individual equality onto a completely different entity (the couple) which the Constitution has NEVER addressed. Your percieved notion of equality for all couples doesn't exist.

In addition, gays as individuals already have the same rights as individual heterosexuals. What right that currently exists today for heterosexuals is being denied to gays?

[Dirty Name]

They are not asking for government recognition of polygamy, or incest or unions with animals. Just government recognition of two person life long commitments.

OK. Let's change the law to allow for government recognition of "two person lifelong commitments."

Now, I want to form a domestic partnership with my best friend, but we aren't sexually intimate, we are heterosexual. Would I be allowed to do so under your argument, Starboy?

I'm going to assume the answer is "yes," because, after all, your concept of "equality" is more important than say, maintaining strong families.

So if I can form a partnership with my best buddy, and can claim social security survivor benefits when he dies, as well as claim a tax credit just for being in partnership with him, then I can also sue my employer for discrimination when he refuses to grant my buddy the same medical benefits that are granted to the pregnant spouses of my coworkers, right?

Now let's take it a step further...My dad has a great job at John Deere, with excellent benefits. My mom passes away, and I would really like to get in on my dad's benefits at his employer. Can I form a domestic partnership with my father and claim benefits from his employer? Can I claim his social security when he dies?

Now another step... I love my wife. But there is this gorgeous girl that lives next door to me, and she could really use the same medical benefits I have from my employer. And she wouldn't mind having the federal tax benefits my wife and I have. My wife and I really love this girl, and we wish to "marry her." Would you allow this as well? If not, then I'm going to demand "equality" for my relationship in the EXACT SAME MANNER in which gays demanded "equality" for their relationships.

Tell me, Starboy, how would you re-write marriage laws in order to allow gay marriage but not these other forms of "marriage"/domestic partnerships? Also, on what basis would you allow gay marriage but not these other forms of marriage? If equality is your basis, I don't see how you can exclude other forms and still keep a straight face.

And if you decide to change your answer and say that you wouldn't try to prevent them, well, just let me know that too.

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: Starboy They are not asking for government recognition of polygamy, or incest or unions with animals. Just government recognition of two person life long commitments. Something the government is already doing. But for some very strange reason opponents seem to think that gays are asking for all those other types of marriage when they are not. They just want the same government recognition that heteros can already get for the same kind of marriage. Starboy

It doesn't matter whether gays are pursuing those particular things or not. The position they have taken, if accepted, rips out the skeletal structure needed to support a definition of marriage that does not allow polygamy or incest or even matrimonium bestiabus.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Dirty Name OK. Let's change the law to allow for government recognition of "two person lifelong commitments." Now, I want to form a domestic partnership with my best friend, but we aren't sexually intimate, we are heterosexual. Would I be allowed to do so under your argument, Starboy?

Yes. It is not as if heteros are required to have sex in order to have their marriage recognized by the government. And it is not as if heteros are required to have sex with each other in order to be married. I am very sure that if you look you will find such couples already exist and are married but they are hetero. It is not as if being married is a formula to get some. Ask men that have been married for awhile. They will laugh at your notion that being married has something to do with having sex. If you want sex stay single.

I'm going to assume the answer is "yes," because, after all, your concept of "equality" is more important than say, maintaining strong families. So if I can form a partnership with my best buddy, and can claim social security survivor benefits when he dies, as well as claim a tax credit just for being in partnership with him, then I can also sue my employer for discrimination when he refuses to grant my buddy the same medical benefits that are granted to the pregnant spouses of my coworkers, right?

Just as hetero couples can already do that are not having sexual relations.

Now let's take it a step further...My dad has a great job at John Deere, with excellent benefits. My mom passes away, and I would really like to get in on my dad's benefits at his employer. Can I form a domestic partnership with my father and claim benefits from his employer? Can I claim his social security when he dies?

You can't marry your dad because incest is illegal and it would not matter if you were male or female. If you were a young adopted female of legal age you could marry your foster dad and you could get benefits. And there is no requirement that you have sex or children. Hell you don't even have to live in the same state. This is already allowed. There are no laws against it. But for some strange reason gays can't do it

Now another step... I love my wife. But there is this gorgeous girl that lives next door to me, and she could really use the same medical benefits I have from my employer. And she wouldn't mind having the federal tax benefits my wife and I have. My wife and I really love this girl, and we wish to "marry her." Would you allow this as well? If not, then I'm going to demand "equality" for my relationship in the EXACT SAME MANNER in which gays demanded "equality" for their relationships.

Polygamy is illegal. Doesn't matter if it is two males and one female or the other way around. And it is a completely different issue since gays are not asking for government recognition of their polygamous long term commitments.

Tell me, Starboy, how would you re-write marriage laws in order to allow gay marriage but not these other forms of "marriage"/domestic partnerships? Also, on what basis would you allow gay marriage but not these other forms of marriage? If equality is your basis, I don't see how you can exclude other forms and still keep a straight face.

No substantive changes required at all, since there is no requirement for sex or children or even cohabitating currently for being married. A gay couple is the same as a hetero couple that can't have children and the law accommodates that kind of marriage just fine.

And if you decide to change your answer and say that you wouldn't try to prevent them, well, just let me know that too.

Other forms of marriage are a different discussion. The issue of polygamy would still be an issue if gays wanted to be married or not. Same as the issue of incestuous marriages. They are not related. I have no idea why you want to lump them all together as if they are all the same thing. Gays want their monagmous long term relationships to be recognized by the government. Not their polygamous relationships or their incestious relationships.

Starboy

[belverron]

I think the argument that society has an interest in keeping children with their biological parents, while legitimate, belittles those who adopt. Often that is the more difficult proposition. It, too, should be encouraged to the full extent possible (if the government must, indeed, act in that capacity).

[Dirty Name]

You can't marry your dad because incest is illegal

LOL. And gays can't marry their lovers because THAT is illegal. Come on! Surely you can do better than this.

Polygamy is illegal.

Again you are relying on illegality? How easy is this for me to refute homosexuality on the EXACT SAME BASIS? What you need to do is come up with a valid reason for denying incestuous couples and polygamists the right to marry, while allowing it for gays. Either that, or admit that the only way to get same sex marriage accepted is to adopt an "anything goes" policy.

And it is a completely different issue since gays are not asking for government recognition of their polygamous long term commitments.

It may be a "completely different issue" as you say. But there are already polygamists who are seeking "equality" just like gays (http://lovemore.com). On what grounds will you deny polygamists the right to marry?

A gay couple is the same as a hetero couple that can't have children and the law accommodates that kind of marriage just fine.

Not in Ohio, dude. In Ohio and a handful of other states, the law clearly says that marriage is between one man and one woman. And due to interstate commerce clauses within the Constitution, and the inherent confilict between Ohio and Massachusetts, for example, this issue will eventually be headed to the Supreme Court to decide the Constitutionality of the laws in both states. So I'll ask the question one more time:

How would you re-write marriage laws in order to allow gay marriage but not these other forms of "marriage"/domestic partnerships? Also, on what basis would you allow gay marriage but not these other forms of marriage? If equality is your basis, I don't see how you can exclude other forms and still keep a straight face.

Other forms of marriage are a different discussion. The issue of polygamy would still be an issue if gays wanted to be married or not. Same as the issue of incestuous marriages. They are not related. I have no idea why you want to lump them all together as if they are all the same thing. Gays want their monagmous long term relationships to be recognized by the government. Not their polygamous relationships or their incestious relationships.

You seem to have difficulty grasping the basic point of this discussion. The reason why polygamy and incest are part of this discussion is because there is no easy way to argue for "equality" for gays without including any form of domestic partnership whatsoever.

And when you include ANY form of marriage, you place an enormous burden on the federal government as well as employers, because both are then forced to finance additional benefits to cover all these new types of relationships. In essence, there isn't a single adult who wouldn't be able to lay claim to benefits that were once the exclusive domain of a group of people who contribute more to society (and at greater risk to themselves) than these new groups.

So, government and business must either shoulder the additional burden (if possible), or they must discontinue benefits altogether.

Regardless of the direction chosen, the net effect on traditional marriage is a gradual weakening of the institution - after all, why enter into a lifelong commitment with someone when you can simply declare a domestic partnership with your buddy, with no real strings attached, and no real consequences when you choose to disolve the relationship?

Over a few generations, the "specialness" of marrying someone will be completely gone, replaced by domestic partnerships that may or may not entitle one to benefits.

How anyone can claim that legalizing gay marriage doesn't harm traditional marriage is beyond me. That's like claiming that putting water in an alchoholic beverage doesn't dilute the original concoction.

[Dirty Name]

It, too, should be encouraged to the full extent possible (if the government must, indeed, act in that capacity).

It already is encouraged in the form of a $10,300 tax break from the federal government - far more than parents get for merely giving birth to their own child - and once the adoption is complete, the adoptive parent(s) enjoys the child tax credit too.

I don't agree with you opinion that society's compelling interest in keeping children with their biological parents somehow belittles those who adopt. The fact is, if society found a way to be 100% successful, there would be no need for adoption in the first place.

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name I don't agree with you opinion that society's compelling interest in keeping children with their biological parents somehow belittles those who adopt.

I meant your emphasis on that. Not the interest itself.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Dirty Name LOL. And gays can't marry their lovers because THAT is illegal. Come on! Surely you can do better than this.

Marrying a gay in a church is not illegal. If you are strait it is only embarrassing but they do not send you to jail for it. Gays are married in churches all the time. We are talking about government recognition of that marriage.

Again you are relying on illegality? How easy is this for me to refute homosexuality on the EXACT SAME BASIS? What you need to do is come up with a valid reason for denying incestuous couples and polygamists the right to marry, while allowing it for gays. Either that, or admit that the only way to get same sex marriage accepted is to adopt an "anything goes" policy.

Incest is not condoned because of medical reasons. The children of incest are more likely to have severe medical problems. That is the only rational reason for not allowing consensual incestuous sex of any kind, married or not married. But gays are not asking for recognition of their incestuous marriage and even if they were they would still not have a case because as the law stands now heteros are not allowed to have incestuous long term relationships so both groups are getting equal treatment under the law.

It may be a "completely different issue" as you say. But there are already polygamists who are seeking "equality" just like gays (http://lovemore.com). On what grounds will you deny polygamists the right to marry?

Polygamy is a different issue. It has nothing to do with gay marriage. The arguments that polygamists make for marriage have nothing to do with gays. The argument that I have heard in the past against polygamy were based on the solvency of the family. That a single man with many wives and thus many children would not be able to support that family. That allowing such marriages would create too many families that were not viable economically and thus would be a burden on the state. But this reason has nothing to do with gays since they would only be able to have children by adoption and the agencies certainly have a means test before they allow the adoption in the first place.

Not in Ohio, dude. In Ohio and a handful of other states, the law clearly says that marriage is between one man and one woman. And due to interstate commerce clauses within the Constitution, and the inherent confilict between Ohio and Massachusetts, for example, this issue will eventually be headed to the Supreme Court to decide the Constitutionality of the laws in both states. So I'll ask the question one more time: How would you re-write marriage laws in order to allow gay marriage but not these other forms of "marriage"/domestic partnerships? Also, on what basis would you allow gay marriage but not these other forms of marriage? If equality is your basis, I don't see how you can exclude other forms and still keep a straight face.

In those few instances just strike "between a man and a woman" and replace it with "two adults". That is all it will take. As I have said before the law already handles the case of two people who can't have children and a gay couple is two people who can't have children.

You seem to have difficulty grasping the basic point of this discussion. The reason why polygamy and incest are part of this discussion is because there is no easy way to argue for "equality" for gays without including any form of domestic partnership whatsoever.

That is your claim. I have no problem discussion gay marriage and leaving incest and polygamy out of it.

And when you include ANY form of marriage, you place an enormous burden on the federal government as well as employers, because both are then forced to finance additional benefits to cover all these new types of relationships. In essence, there isn't a single adult who wouldn't be able to lay claim to benefits that were once the exclusive domain of a group of people who contribute more to society (and at greater risk to themselves) than these new groups.

What burden are you talking about? Many large corporations already extend benefits to gay partners. It is not different than a strait employee. They work for the company they get the company benefits for they partner. One could argue that the costs to the company will be less for gay couples because they are less likely to have children and children really drive up the cost of health care.

So, government and business must either shoulder the additional burden (if possible), or they must discontinue benefits altogether.

As I said most large corporations already do this. For them it is a wash and when you factor in that there are no kids it works out to the plus for them.

Regardless of the direction chosen, the net effect on traditional marriage is a gradual weakening of the institution - after all, why enter into a lifelong commitment with someone when you can simply declare a domestic partnership with your buddy, with no real strings attached, and no real consequences when you choose to disolve the relationship?

I have never understood this argument. Gays already make life long commitments to each other. They already have families. I would think that a large group of people who act like a family but are not recognized as a family would work against the strength of the institution. Why in the world would a group of people who see the need and the benefits of the institution weaken the institution? If any group is responsible for weakening the institution it is heteros because we do not currently allow gay marriage and the divorce rate is a disgrace. My bet is that if you allowed gays to marry it would reduce the divorce rate.

Over a few generations, the "specialness" of marrying someone will be completely gone, replaced by domestic partnerships that may or may not entitle one to benefits.

If anything is going to destroy marriage it is not gays. It is the people who are married but do not act as if there is anything special about it. Heteros have done plenty to destroy the institution. I can only see gays improving it since they already hold it so special that they are willing to fight for it.

How anyone can claim that legalizing gay marriage doesn't harm traditional marriage is beyond me. That's like claiming that putting water in an alchoholic beverage doesn't dilute the original concoction.

Talking about a tradition marriage is like talking about the average American. There is no such thing.

Starboy

[Savant]

We all have a need to create new families as the ones we were born into die off. The easiest way to create a new family is to procreate a couple times and have your family recognized legaly and culturaly by your community. Some of us need to seek alternative methods for varios reasons - infertility, homosexuality, etc.

This isn't a battle over some petty word. This is about a people being prevented from creating new families and having them recognized by the community because of the ideologies of a larger group of people.

We live in a democratic republic. Unfortunately the democratic process has to create it's victims before the republic kicks in - which I hope will happen soon.

It's the American process, slow and painful but eventually it works.

[Dirty Name]

This is about a people being prevented from creating new families

Hogwash. Gays are free to create whatever bizarre family structure they want. What gay couples want is to be perceived as "equal" to heterosexual couples - but the "equality" argument falls short, especially when it is learned that gays believe they are equal to heterosexual marriages, but other forms of marriage such as incest and polygamy are not considered "equal."

[Dirty Name]

As I said most large corporations already do this.

I don't think that's a true statement. But even so, it's voluntary. I don't believe businesses should be forced to recognize homosexual marriages, but that's what would happen.

[Dirty Name]

Incest is not condoned because of medical reasons. The children of incest are more likely to have severe medical problems.

While I agree that incest should remain illegal for the reasons you outline, I'm playing devil's advocate here. Who are you to say that a mere medical reason is enough to discriminate against someone else? After all, you support homosexuality and gay marriage - isn't there some medical evidence suggesting that homosexual relationships aren't the healthiest lifestyle choice?

And can't the problems of incest be resolved in the same way that sexual problems with homosexuality are dealt with - by practicing "safe sex?"

Finally, what about homosexual incest? There is no chance of a child being produced in that respect, so where is the danger. Shouldn't incestuous gay couples be allowed to marry?

[Dirty Name]

But gays are not asking for recognition of their incestuous marriage and even if they were they would still not have a case because as the law stands now heteros are not allowed to have incestuous long term relationships so both groups are getting equal treatment under the law.

This is the second time in a week that you have made my argument for me:

If you simply substitute one group for another, you have repeated my exact point about gay marriage. Witnesseth:

...Gays would still not have a case because as the law stands now heteros are not allowed to marry a person of the same sex, so both groups are getting equal treatment under the law.

[Savant]

Quote by: Dirty Name Hogwash. Gays are free to create whatever bizarre family structure they want. What gay couples want is to be perceived as "equal" to heterosexual couples - but the "equality" argument falls short, especially when it is learned that gays believe they are equal to heterosexual marriages, but other forms of marriage such as incest and polygamy are not considered "equal."

Heh, I can't imagine what would compell someone to misrepresent a post that is literally inches above their own. How is transparent dishonestly an acceptable trade off for making a convinient rebuttal?

You claim I said: "This is about a people being prevented from creating new families" which is - as you pointed out - not true. However, it falls short of proving I am a liar because the actual quote from the post right above yours is:"This is about a people being prevented from creating new families and having them recognized by the community because of the ideologies of a larger group of people."

As you can see, theres no need for me to retort to your point, because you never honestly addressed mine. Now, normaly this sort of behavior comes from a person who feels cornered. That being the case, let me provide you some options to make you more comfortable:

1) Address the point I made - honestly and thoughtfully and represent your self and your agenda well.

2) Say nothing

3) Misquote me again, but this time wait untill my post is a couple pages buried. Use this sentence for an even greater illusion: My wife and *I prefer to have sex with my kids* away at the babysitters house. (Use the bit between the asterix)

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name I don't think that's a true statement.

It most certainly is.

And I appreciate Savant's point very much. It has always been more about family than children. You just want to construct baby-making machines. Well, that's not what everyone needs. My cousin and his wife have been married for years, and they have no children and that's according to the game plan. No, I don't believe government has an interest in coddling relationships that make babies. We honestly don't need them that much.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Dirty Name This is the second time in a week that you have made my argument for me: If you simply substitute one group for another, you have rep