Homosexual Marriage

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name By the way, have you ever attempted to list a single compelling interest that the government might have in legally recognizing the relationship of a homosexual couple?

Homosexual Marriage
Homosexual Marriage

Quote by: Dirty Name Pregnancy CANNOT always be planned. Sometimes it occurs without notice. And when that happens, society has a compelling interest in the individual life of the new citizen.

Then let society handle it. Ending up with a brood of children is the parents' responsibility. Will I get a tax break for contracting AIDS? Is that not my responsibility?

Quote by: Dirty Name When that happens, our society believes (as it has for the last 229 years) that the biological parents are the best legal and social solution for the welfare of that child.

So, tax breaks make parents more likely to stay together?

Quote by: Dirty Name First of all, gays don't "have" children, they aquire them.

Is it just me, or are you making that distinction just to be spiteful?

I'm a little curious about something. I'm not entirely sure, but isn't the tax break just for having a dependent, anyway? It doesn't actually have anything to do with having children within a married, heterosexual relationship, does it? So if it's treated the same whether or not your married, how do your statements support your case?

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name Oh really? How? When you say "that pillar," I hope you are referring strictly to heterosexual relationships.

Some of us think outside the box. We're making the pillar thicker and nice and heterogeneous. See, you like hetero things, so it works out perfectly.

[Dirty Name]

Then let society handle it. Ending up with a brood of children is the parents' responsibility. Will I get a tax break for contracting AIDS?

AIDS does not represent something that society benefits from. Children do. You have already admitted that society (in this case, our nation) has an interest to exist in perpetuity. You can reference your own post #1002 for proof.

So, tax breaks make parents more likely to stay together?

In a small way, I believe they probably do. More importantly, they certainly help to offset the costs of raising children, while acting as a small incentive to stay at home and give up a second income, which has been shown to be a very effective parenting technique.

I'm a little curious about something. I'm not entirely sure, but isn't the tax break just for having a dependent, anyway? It doesn't actually have anything to do with having children within a married, heterosexual relationship, does it? So if it's treated the same whether or not your married, how do your statements support your case?

I believe there are tax benefits for "Married/Filing Jointly." If I am wrong, how does the dependent tax break support YOUR cause? If you are already getting the break, what in the world are gays whining about that a contract wouldn't resolve?

[belverron]

The APA's argument in favor of the recognition of homosexual marriages is also one of my favorites.

The APA expresses a valid interest in the well being of heterosexual married couples in such areas as children's mental health and other aspects of family life. Heterosexual relationships have a legal framework for their existence, which provides a stabilizing force. In the United States, with the recent exception of Vermont, same sex partners are currently denied the important benefits and responsibilities of legal marriage. Same sex couples therefore experience several kinds of state-sanctioned discrimination that affect the stability of their relationships. The children of gay and lesbian parents do not have the same protection that legal marriage affords the children of heterosexual couples. Adoptive and divorced lesbian and gay parents face additional obstacles. An adoptive parent who is lesbian or gay is presumed unfit in many U.S. jurisdictions. Furthermore, when couples do adopt, usually one parent is granted legal rights, while the other parent may have no legal standing. These obstacles occur even though research has shown that the children raised by lesbian and gay men are as well adjusted as those reared within heterosexual relationships. The American Psychiatric Association has historically supported equity, parity, and non-discrimination regarding legal issues affecting mental health. Educating the public about lesbian and gay relationships and supporting efforts to establish same sex legal unions is consistent with the Association's advocacy for other disadvantaged minority groups.... Legal marriage will provide important mental health benefits both to members, or same sex couples and to the wider community of lesbians, gay men and bisexuals (Cabaj & Purcell, 1998). The majority of lesbians and gay men report being in a committed relationship (Bradford & Ryan 1998; Kurdek 1995). Wedding ceremonies, though not legally sanctioned, are common. Nevertheless, the couples lack the same legal rights and responsibilities listed above, as those accorded to heterosexual married couples. Although there has not yet been sufficient research into the psychological harm caused by the lack of legal marriage, same sex couples must endure varying degrees of statesanctioned discrimination, which necessarily affects the stability of these relationships.

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name AIDS does not represent something that society benefits from. Children do. You have already admitted that society (in this case, our nation) has an interest to exist in perpetuity. You can reference your own post #1002 for proof.

We aren't going to dwindle away from a paucity of newborns any time soon, Dirty Name.

Quote by: Dirty Name In a small way, I believe they probably do. More importantly, they certainly help to offset the costs of raising children, while acting as a small incentive to stay at home and give up a second income, which has been shown to be a very effective parenting technique.

It's not the government's problem if they can't afford to do that.

Quote by: Dirty Name I believe there are tax benefits for "Married/Filing Jointly." If I am wrong, how does the dependent tax break support YOUR cause? If you are already getting the break, what in the world are gays whining about that a contract wouldn't resolve?

The Married/Filing Jointly, yes. But that has nothing to do with chilidren, which is the issue which has been dominating the discussion since you joined it. How can you base your argument off children when there are no financial benefits associated with childbirth within marriage?

As for benefits not available through a contract...

Quote by: APA · Spousal health insurance benefits · The right to consult with doctors and make medical decisions on behalf of a mentally incompetent spouse · Immunity from testifying against a spouse in a criminal proceeding · The right of residency for a foreign spouse of a U.S. citizen · Joint child custody · Award of child custody in divorce proceedings · Support from spouse following divorce · Exemption from conveyance taxes · Survivor's rights to homestead and domestic leases · The right to inherit from a spouse who dies intestate · Family leave to care for a sick or dying spouse or to attend the spouse's funeral · Social Security survivor's benefits

Only two of those (health insurance and social security survivor's benefits) are purely financial perks, and only three of them (medical decisions, survivor's rights (different taxation, I believe) and the other right to inherit) can be gained through contracts. Those contracts are also fairly expensive to achieve, I am given to understand.

[Dirty Name]

The children of gay and lesbian parents do not have the same protection that legal marriage affords the children of heterosexual couples.

This is absolutely false. It is written as though the child was conceived via the gay couple, when clearly the child was conceived in a heterosexual relationship, the rights and protections of which the gay parent has subsequently chosen to forfeit through his/her decision to parent the child with the help of another gay person. The child's lack of benefits is a result of the fact that the gay parent places a lower priority on the child than he/she places on his/her personal relationship.

An adoptive parent who is lesbian or gay is presumed unfit in many U.S. jurisdictions. Furthermore, when couples do adopt, usually one parent is granted legal rights, while the other parent may have no legal standing. These obstacles occur even though research has shown that the children raised by lesbian and gay men are as well adjusted as those reared within heterosexual relationships.

Just as much research exists which shows exactly the opposite. Unfortunately, I believe ALL of it is methodologically flawed, and a more comprehensive study should be conducted that examines children from birth until death and compares them based on how they were raised. Until such time as that happens, there is no way we should be granting single parents or homosexuals the right to adopt a child and automatically preclude them from having either a mother or a father.

The American Psychiatric Association has historically supported equity, parity, and non-discrimination regarding legal issues affecting mental health. Educating the public about lesbian and gay relationships and supporting efforts to establish same sex legal unions is consistent with the Association's advocacy for other disadvantaged minority groups...

The APA is focused too intently on mental health and nothing else. A comprehensive examination of the issue would reveal that it's much larger than just a mental health issue. But thanks for weighing in, APA.

[Dirty Name]

We aren't going to dwindle away from a paucity of newborns any time soon, Dirty Name.

You just can't seem to resist trying to constrict my argument to childbirth. Sorry, but that's just a single component of a larger machine.

[Dirty Name]

It's not the government's problem if they can't afford to do that.

Of course it is! The government cannot tell a woman to get sterilized! And if she has a child, the government has a compelling interest in ensuring he/she is raised in the best possible environment. This is why welfare exists, Belverron, because the government has a compelling interest in making sure poor mothers can afford to raise their children, even if they were born out of wedlock.

[Dirty Name]

How can you base your argument off children when there are no financial benefits associated with childbirth within marriage?

Because the entire concept that I am trying to inject into your skull is that heterosexuals in general have children, married or not. Because of that, our society tries to encourage heterosexuals to join into a relationship so any future children are born into a stable environment.

From the government's point of view, there is nothing special about homosexual relationships because there is no compelling interest. Such relationships are exactly the same, in the goverment's view, as two roommates sharing the rent. Why should the government care whether or not two homosexuals stay together?

Your best answer was STD's, which is something that can also be said of heterosexuals. But heterosexuals have the additional compelling interest of child-rearing. Thus, the two entities are not equal in the eyes of the government.

[Dirty Name]

Those contracts are also fairly expensive to achieve, I am given to understand.

Then argue for better rates from attorneys, not for altering society at large.

[Jack]

when clearly the child was conceived in a heterosexual relationship, the rights and protections of which the gay parent has subsequently chosen to forfeit through his/her decision to parent the child with the help of another gay person. The child's lack of benefits is a result of the fact that the gay parent places a lower priority on the child than he/she places on his/her personal relationship.

Too presumptive. A child is conceived by the union of two people of opposite sexes. That infers nothing about the couple's orientation. And how you arrived at the conclusion that a gay parent places a lower priority on the child than on their own life is beyond me. It almost sounds like you have a particular relationship in mind, which you have generalized beyond reason.

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name Until such time as that happens, there is no way we should be granting single parents or homosexuals the right to adopt a child and automatically preclude them from having either a mother or a father.

Guilty until proven innocent, I see.

Quote by: Dirty Name The APA is focused too intently on mental health and nothing else. A comprehensive examination of the issue would reveal that it's much larger than just a mental health issue. But thanks for weighing in, APA.

Isn't your argument that children raised within heterosexual marriages are mentally healthier? Your basic premise is that society has an interest in mentally healthier individuals. Way to be inconsistent.

Quote by: Dirty Name And if she has a child, the government has a compelling interest in ensuring he/she is raised in the best possible environment. This is why welfare exists, Belverron, because the government has a compelling interest in making sure poor mothers can afford to raise their children, even if they were born out of wedlock.

I was talking about giving up a second income when I said it's not the government's problem if they can't afford to do that. You're talking about TANF, which is a completely different issue. You really do have a problem with taking quotes out of context.

You just can't seem to resist trying to constrict my argument to childbirth. Sorry, but that's just a single component of a larger machine.

Quote by: Dirty Name You have already admitted that society (in this case, our nation) has an interest to exist in perpetuity.

What kind of response do you expect when you make a statement like that?

Quote by: Dirty Name Because the entire concept that I am trying to inject into your skull is that heterosexuals in general have children, married or not. Because of that, our society tries to encourage heterosexuals to join into a relationship so any future children are born into a stable environment.

And homosexuals have (yes, we know, not by conventional means) and adopt children, married or not.

The fact remains that, though you seem to think that marriage exists for the purpose of creating a stable environment for children, the specific benefits associated with it do not seem to support that claim. There are no benefits associated with marriage that even involve children except for custody issues, which are as much about the married couple as the child. You've been arguing about a form of marriage that does not exist in this country from the beginning. Marriage in this country is about protecting and providing a framework for a relationship, and homosexuals desperately need that.

[Dirty Name]

Guilty until proven innocent, I see.

No more so than a person who isn't allowed to drive, fly an airplane, or steer a boat, until our government grants him/her a license to do so. The fact is, we restrict people from engaging in certain activity all the time. This is no different.

Isn't your argument that children raised within heterosexual marriages are mentally healthier? Your basic premise is that society has an interest in mentally healthier individuals. Way to be inconsistent.

Incorrect again. My basic premise is that society has an interest in promoting that the biological parents are the ones who raise the child - for both economic and social reasons. Within the "social" aspect, mental health is but one aspect. You seem hell-bent on attempting to narrow the focus of my argument to suit your needs.

You're talking about TANF, which is a completely different issue. You really do have a problem with taking quotes out of context.

No, no, no. I simply gave TANF as a single example of how the raising of children is the government's problem. You are the one who erroneously claimed that it's not the government's problem if a woman can't afford to raise a child. I say that children represent a compelling interest for the government to get involved. If it's cheaper to simply encourage biological families to stay together, rather than pay for welfare and other forms of TANF, then we as a society should do just that.

Quote by: belverron Quote by: Dirty Name You just can't seem to resist trying to constrict my argument to childbirth. Sorry, but that's just a single component of a larger machine. {Quote=Dirty Name] You have already admitted that society (in this case, our nation) has an interest to exist in perpetuity. What kind of response do you expect when you make a statement like that?

What kind of response do you expect when you make a statement like that?[/quote]

I expect you to understand that such a quote is but a single component of my multifaceted argument. The concept of marriage isn't limited to a single plank, but is constructed from a firm foundation rooted in the idea of nuclear family, backed by the government's compelling interest in:

1) The entire child-rearing process from birth until adulthood
2) The idea that a constant supply of new children is a benefit to society
3) The acknowledgement that heterosexual relationships naturally result in pregnancy and childbirth

My argument relies on each of these ideas and any attempt to reduce my position to just one or two of them is disingenuous on your part.

There are no benefits associated with marriage that even involve children except for custody issues, which are as much about the married couple as the child.

This is blatantly false. Every single benefit extended to a heterosexual couple promotes the stability of that relationship, which ultimately has a bearing on the raising of that couple's children. Surely you understand what I am saying.

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name The entire child-rearing process from birth until adulthood

Does not inherently exclude same-sex couples.

Quote by: Dirty Name The idea that a constant supply of new children is a benefit to society

Not entirely untrue, but erroneous in the assumption that we will ever lack for children, as I've stated numerous times.

Quote by: Dirty Name The acknowledgement that heterosexual relationships naturally result in pregnancy and childbirth

We've established that the tax break for claiming a dependent really doesn't have anything to do with marriage. That none of the benefits of marriage really have anything directly to do with child-rearing.

Quote by: Dirty Name My argument relies on each of these ideas and any attempt to reduce my position to just one or two of them is disingenuous on your part.

So they don't have to be valid individually? That doesn't make any sense.

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name You are the one who erroneously claimed that it's not the government's problem if a woman can't afford to raise a child.

Maybe it would help if you would read my posts.

Quote by: belverron I was talking about giving up a second income when I said it's not the government's problem if they can't afford to do that.

Quote by: Dirty Name No more so than a person who isn't allowed to drive, fly an airplane, or steer a boat, until our government grants him/her a license to do so. The fact is, we restrict people from engaging in certain activity all the time. This is no different.

The government doesn't offer a course in child-rearing, and there is no more indication that homosexual couples make poor parents than there is that black or interracial couples make poor parents. So what, if I get enough people to claim that one of those arrangements might not be good for the child they should be put on parenting probation?

Quote by: Dirty Name Incorrect again. My basic premise is that society has an interest in promoting that the biological parents are the ones who raise the child - for both economic and social reasons. Within the "social" aspect, mental health is but one aspect. You seem hell-bent on attempting to narrow the focus of my argument to suit your needs.

You seem Hell-bent on revealing your argument in tiny bits. You haven't that I can recall shown all the myriad ways children benefit from the parenting of their biological mother and father.

[Dirty Name]

You haven't that I can recall shown all the myriad ways children benefit from the parenting of their biological mother and father.

What crap. If there is some other entity that would be better at raising children than the biological parents, NAME IT NOW. Not only does the vast majority of society believe this is true, I can make the case for it if you are actually going to challenge EVERY SINGLE ASSUMPTION that society has lived by for the past 229 years. The support for biological parenting includes a myriad of reasons under the headings of social, legal AND economic justification for encouraging the biological parents to raise their own children.

So now you have your work cut out for you, Belverron:

1) Name any single entity that would generally be better caretakers of a child than the biological parents who brought the child into the world.

2) Name a COMPELLING GOVERNMENT INTEREST in recognizing gay marriage.

To date, NOBODY has been able to name one.

[Dirty Name]

The entire child-rearing process...

Quote by: Belverron Does not inherently exclude same-sex couples.

Um, OK, homosexuals couples can participate in part of the process, but never the whole thing. Ever.

Not entirely untrue, but erroneous in the assumption that we will ever lack for children, as I've stated numerous times.

I've never, ever made the case that we will lack for children. The case I am making is that (a) children must be viewed as a benefit, not a burden to society, and (b) the government recognizes that they are going to be born no matter what, and as such, we should strive for the most logical childrearing environment possible, which necessarily includes the biological parents.

Interestingly, when the laws surrounding marriage were first crafted, the survival of the nation was very much in doubt - overpopulation was not even a remote possibility, and true patriotic families had whole litters of children to help with basic tasks on the farm, to help man the militia, etc.

But even though that aspect of society has changed, children must still be viewed as a benefit to society if we wish to exist in perpetuity. So what I am arguing for here is the appropriate attitude towards the birth of children, not necessarily that we have them in great numbers.

[Jack]

Name any single entity that would generally be better caretakers of a child than the biological parents who brought the child into the world.

Generally? I do know that in many cases the biological parents are the last people on Earth who should be allowed to raise their children. How about "people who love them, regardless of relationship"? Our society has suffered increasing problems with child abuse, up to and including the killing of the children, by their biological parents.
Unless someone can come up with a way to quit flogging the same dead horse in this thread, I'm outta here. This gay guy is totally bored with this debate at this point.

[belverron]

I think I'm out, too. It's a waste of time, at this point.