Homosexual Marriage

[Dirty Name]

excluded by being denied such priveledges

Homosexuals are not "denied such priveledges." Homosexual couples simply don't qualify. Just like I don't qualify for unemployment or welfare because I have a job. Just like 17-year olds don't qualify to vote, even though many of them would make better voters than some who are qualified.

There is no denial, there is no discrimination, there is no inequality. It's all just a manufactured argument to legitimize the homosexual lifestyle.

[SteveA]

Homosexuals are not "denied such priveledges." Homosexual couples simply don't qualify. Just like I don't qualify for unemployment or welfare because I have a job. Just like 17-year olds don't qualify to vote, even though many of them would make better voters than some who are qualified. There is no denial, there is no discrimination, there is no inequality. It's all just a manufactured argument to legitimize the homosexual lifestyle.

And Christians aren't denied religious education in classrooms, the material just doesn't qualify as suitable for public education?

Would it be grammatically correct to say I was denied a loan because I didn't qualify?

If I must rephrase what I said previously in this format, then I'm making the claim that neither homosexual nor heterosexual couples should qualify for special government priviledges due to the myriad reasons mentioned in previous posts.

I agree there are reasons why 17 year olds should not be voting. We typically view minors as under the guidance of their parents. Should families be represented according to their size? I don't think so, primarily because few of the resources at stake were created by minors so they have little natural right to a say in how those are "spent". Just as not all members of a family vote on things. Neither should people assume the opinion of someone elses child should hold sway over their actions. I'm not going to claim our voting system is perfect because I feel it's very often abused. There are other potential voting problems that are even worse (like people voting to receive public resources that someone else created or allowing government officials to vote their own raises etc.). Likely people would not have even originally agreed to be governed by a system in which children were equally represented (I know some people would like skip being a parent if they were expected to place equal weight on their own childrens opinions much less the opinions of someone elses children).

But the main point I was trying to demonstrate in 80%+ of what I posted earlier was that both forms of marriage should be dropped as a federal institution and replaced with alternative state, local or even better, private institutions. Then people wouldn't have to argue over whether or not qualifying means being denied. Instead there would be an opportunity for Utah to remain Utah and San Francisco to be San Francisco, without conflicts. I'm even married with 5 children and receive legal benefits due to it being a state marriage, though I married for other reasons and don't believe other people should be placed at an artificial disadvantage for something I benefitted from even without any government involvement.

One more quick example to show the benefits of independent local decisions over the marriage issue:

Let's assume 80% of the people in Utah don't desire gay marriages, while 80% of the people in San Francisco do.

If we assume a federal ruling has to be made then either way we decide, half the population feels they aren't represented and these threads on political forums continue. Instead if we head back toward individual states rights, and remove this from being a federal issue (which is really doesn't need to be), we instead have gay marriages denied in Utah but allowed in San Francisco, which leaves only 20% of the population out in the cold, with at least the option of moving to an area where they are accepted as still an option. Democracy can be unavoidable if there's a large enough consensus for something, and that's not entirely bad, but it's also not an ideal in need of greater use.

[Dirty Name]

both forms of marriage should be dropped as a federal institution and replaced with alternative state, local or even better, private institutions. Then people wouldn't have to argue over whether or not qualifying means being denied. Instead there would be an opportunity for Utah to remain Utah and San Francisco to be San Francisco, without conflicts

I don't think you have thought this out very well. You advocate dropping marriage in it's entirety. For what reason? I looked for some response to my post about the basis on which homosexuals were discriminated against, and you didn't name it. For there to be a case for discrimination, you need to have some legal basis. Otherwise, you are advocating a change in what many consider to be a critical institution in this country - and for what? Surely there is SOME compelling legal reason.

Now for the part I don't think you've thought out very well:

If we assume a federal ruling has to be made then either way we decide, half the population feels they aren't represented and these threads on political forums continue. Instead if we head back toward individual states rights, and remove this from being a federal issue (which is really doesn't need to be), we instead have gay marriages denied in Utah but allowed in San Francisco, which leaves only 20% of the population out in the cold, with at least the option of moving to an area where they are accepted as still an option. Democracy can be unavoidable if there's a large enough consensus for something, and that's not entirely bad, but it's also not an ideal in need of greater use.

The above suggestion ignores Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution - "The Commerce Clause" and all of the case law that has already been decided on this matter.

One of those issues is the fact that all states currently reciprocate the recognition of marriages from other states. If a gay couple was to be considered "married" in San Francisco, but denied recognition in Salt Lake, then the state of Utah would face a lawsuit under the commerce clause. Such legal manuevering is already happening as a result of the Massachussetts decision to legalize gay marriage. This is the precise reason the issue is headed to the Supreme Court, and the Supremes will take this case.

So I ask you, on what basis will the Supremes find that gays are discriminated against? In other words, what criteria do states use to deny homosexuals the right to marry one another? Is sexual orientation even considered by the states? No. What IS considered is whether or not the couple seeking marriage is an opposite sex couple. The sexual orientation of that couple is never questioned.

Consider two straight men who seek "marriage benefits." Are they being denied rights based on sexual orientation? Of course not. What about an opposite-sex gay couple wishing to be married for benefits? Can they get married? Certainly! So it's easy to see that "sexual orientation" is not a determining factor for marriage.

I'll be waiting for your take on this.

[belverron]

Oh, if we're getting into the recognition issues, there are some interesting ones your not considering. We have treaties with Canada and probably other countries performing gay marriages which say we recognize their marriages. I doubt we specified heterosexual marriages

[Dirty Name]

Since gay marriage is an oxymoron, there is no need to specify heterosexual marriages.

[YourTokah]

Quote by: Dirty Name 1) Why does it need to be recognized in the first place? Typical answer = "equality"

Typical answer? Like "equality" as a reasoning for a desire for some action to take place or cease isn't good enough. When a black man and a white woman weren't premitted to marry, wasn't it about equality then?

Quote by: Dirty Name 2) Equality for gays necessarily means equality for anyone wishing to marry

No it doesn't. This is the latest argument being used to support the ban on homosexual marriage. Just because you allow, legally, for two men or two women to become civilly joined in a legally binding ceremony that affords them the same rights and responsibilities as their heterosexual counterparts does not mean that you suddenly have to let fathers marry their daughters, farmers marry their pigs, etc. Not saying those issues wouldn't be raised, especially in some southern, western and midwestern states, but one thing at a time, okay?

Quote by: Dirty Name 3) Open marriage means benefits for all

And benefits for a gay couple just wouldn't do?

Quote by: Dirty Name 4) Benefits for all means massive increase in federal budget and taxes, OR 5) Elimination of benefits for all

They're paying their taxes. I am no more a drain on the system now that I am married than I was when I was single. Marriage doesn't just lead to tax breaks. It leads to a sense of personal security in one's life, which leads to exploration of opportunity, furthering one's education and career goals since you have the partner their to help support you in the meantime - in the end, it leads to an advanced income, which means even more taxes that you're paying.

Quote by: Dirty Name 6) Elimination of marriage benefits weakens institution of marriage

One of the big arguments about keeping marriage hetero-only is about how it's tradition, one man and one woman and their love for each other, blah blah. If and end to minor tax breaks puts an end to a few marriages, then so much the better for those individuals on a personal level, becuse they obviously weren't loving eachother properly anyway. They would have ended up in an abusive situation, physically or verbally/emotionally, or they would have ended up cheating, getting an expensive divorce, one or both of them could have ended up cleaned out and living off the system, especially a single parent, not to mention what you feel that could do to the kids.

Quote by: Dirty Name 7) Weakened marriage results in more kids raised in single-parent households.

True, although kids in single parent households is not a direct corollary to gay marriage. See above.

Quote by: Dirty Name 8) More single parent households means wide variety of negative consequences such as teen pregnancy, drug abuse, criminal activity, unemployment, reliance on welfare, etc.

Perhaps. See above.

Quote by: Dirty Name I contend there is NO REASON for gay marriage in the first place. Equality isn't the issue because there is no basis on which gays are discriminated against.

Uhhh.... Except that they can't MARRY EACHOTHER. So obviously there's a little discrimination going on, don't ya think?

Quote by: Dirty Name Sexual orientation? Nope. Consider a gay man and gay woman expressing a desire to marry one another. Society and the law allow it. Thus, "sexual orientation" is NOT the basis for discrimination.

Not true. Sexual orientation is the reason that a man and a man want to get married, just like it is the reason a man and a woman want to get married. The problem is that society accepts a man and a woman's orientation toward eachother as correct, for various reasons, most of which are based on tradition and religion, while they do not accept two individuals of the same gender having an orientation toward eachother. It is entirely about their sexual orientation.

Quote by: Dirty Name Gender? Nope. Which particular gender is targeted by the current law? Male? No. Female? No. Since neither gender is prevented from marrying, no claim can be made for gender discrimination.

No, it's not gender discrimination, unless you read what I said above. If one of the two men were a woman, then it would be fine. In that case, it IS gender discrimination against that individual for not being the opposite sex.

Age? No.
Race? No.
Religion? No.
Color? No.
Creed? No.

Quote by: Dirty Name What then?

I believe I've told you.

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name Since gay marriage is an oxymoron, there is no need to specify heterosexual marriages.

I doubt that argument holds up when considered in the context of a binding treaty. They are marriages in Canada. Now, whether the fact that Canada changed their definition of marriage after the treaty's ratification affects how we interpret it is another matter. I'm not saying we'll be recognizing those marriages. But it is an interesting possibility.

I don't know why I bother posting all these nifty tidbits I've acquired: clearly you don't appreciate them. For that matter, I don't know why I bother discussing anything with you.

[Dirty Name]

Not saying those issues wouldn't be raised, especially in some southern, western and midwestern states, but one thing at a time, okay?

There can be no doubt that this is the strategy, and this is exactly why conservatives oppose gay marriage. Just tell me on what grounds you would deny two brothers the right to marry?

On what grounds would you deny two heterosexual males the right to marry? If gays can be "married" why not heterosexual same sex friends?

The concept of gay marriage based on equality is pure folly.

[Osborn F Enready]

Belverron said:
For that matter, I don't know why I bother discussing anything with you.

I say:
Discussing things with people who bend the truth, only see what they want, and ignore facts that contradict their position, is a folly in pointlessness. Hence the reason I don't debate Dirty Name much anymore.

[Dirty Name]

If and end to minor tax breaks puts an end to a few marriages, then so much the better for those individuals on a personal level, becuse they obviously weren't loving eachother properly anyway. They would have ended up in an abusive situation, physically or verbally/emotionally, or they would have ended up cheating, getting an expensive divorce, one or both of them could have ended up cleaned out and living off the system, especially a single parent, not to mention what you feel that could do to the kids.

All the above may be true, but can you say that it would prevent them from having kids in the first place? That's the key difference between gays and straights. Normal sexual relations between straights can and often does result in children. For this reason, the federal government has a compelling interest in encouraging marriage for straight couples.

[Dirty Name]

Discussing things with people who bend the truth, only see what they want, and ignore facts that contradict their position, is a folly in pointlessness. Hence the reason I don't debate Dirty Name much anymore.

Not a single citation of how or where I've bent the truth. Only accusations. The real reason you don't debate me anymore is because this thread is limited to gay marriage and you always try to bring the legality of income tax into the mix. Since I am forced to ignore the issues you raise, you grow frustrated and leave. Simple, really.

[Dirty Name]

Uhhh.... Except that they can't MARRY EACHOTHER. So obviously there's a little discrimination going on, don't ya think?

No. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me on what basis we discriminate against gays in relation to marriage? There has to be some basis. Can you not put it into words, as the EEOC does on employment applications (EEOC Disclaimer: Employment offers are tendered solely on the basis of qualifications without unlawful consideration of Race, Religion, Age, Color, Gender, Marital Status, National Origin, Disability, Veteran Status, Sexual Orientation, or as otherwise required by applicable law)?

Which of these or any other basis is being used to "single out" heterosexual couples?.

[Osborn F Enready]

Dirty Name said:
Not a single citation of how or where I've bent the truth. Only accusations. The real reason you don't debate me anymore is because this thread is limited to gay marriage and you always try to bring the legality of income tax into the mix. Since I am forced to ignore the issues you raise, you grow frustrated and leave. Simple, really.

I say:
BS! I said the exact same things in my first posts. ITS DESCRIMINATION ON ALL LEVELS!

Tax descrimination.
Sex descrimination.
Moral descrimination.

Not to mention the illegality of income tax, illegality of endorsement of a religious ceremony.

[Dirty Name]

Not true. Sexual orientation is the reason that a man and a man want to get married, just like it is the reason a man and a woman want to get married. The problem is that society accepts a man and a woman's orientation toward eachother as correct, for various reasons, most of which are based on tradition and religion, while they do not accept two individuals of the same gender having an orientation toward eachother. It is entirely about their sexual orientation.

OK, let's test your theory then.

Are there cases where opposite-sex, yet gay couples have gotten married? Yes. Here's a link to prove it happens all the time: http://info.date.com/R2/infotopic_37...ntid_2154.html

Was sexual orientation even considered by the government in granting benefits to such a couple? No. It's not the issue.

Consider this analogy:

Our society has limited resources, and the government has decided they wish to encourage the production of oranges. After all, oranges are a healthy snack and most of society likes them. So the government offers a subsidy to all orange growers to encourage continued production of oranges.

A small percentage of the population is doesn't like oranges because they taste bad to them, and they don't want to produce them. Instead, this group prefers the taste of chocolate candy bars and sets out to produce them instead. When the orange subsidy is passed as law, the candy bar folks get all worked up and demand equality, saying they don't like oranges and candy bars taste so yummy, and since production of candy bars doesn't really hurt anyone (as long as you brush your teeth), why shouldn't the candy bar producers get a subsidy too? After all, isn't the government discriminating against candy bar producers on the basis of food group orientation?

The answer, of course, is no. No discrimination exists on the personal level. The government doesn't care what sort of food each producer prefers. The government doesn't deny benefits based on food group (or sexual) preference. It denies benefits based on whether or not the producer (or couple) QUALIFIES for benefits.

[belverron]

You didn't read that link you posted. The response:
"First of all, a homosexual is not likely to have a "happy married life" with a girl, "normal" or otherwise. A male homosexual is only going to be happy with a man. Since you know you're gay, marrying a "very nice and decent girl" would not be a very nice or decent thing to do irregardless of whether you can satisfy her sexual needs. YOU'LL never be satisfied and in addition to sneaking around to have sex with men behind her back (naughty, naughty), you'll be living a lie. Before long, you'll probably grow resentful of the situation and take it out on her, as if it's her fault she's not the man you really want and need.



As for your interest in marrying a lesbian, well, how would you plan to satisfy her sexual needs? You can't, but an "arrangement" between a gay man and a lesbian is certainly preferable to duping a straight girl into marriage when you know it's a charade. But now you'll have two closeted people hiding their true selves from the world. If that's what you want, there may be some hope. If you're truly a "boy" and, therefore, too young to be on the prowl in a gay bar (some are "mixed," catering to both gay men and lesbians), your best bet would be to take out a classified ad seeking a lesbian who wants to keep up "straight" appearances by getting hitched to a homo.



Better yet, read your local gay newspaper's directory of social events to find out where gays and lesbians gather in your area. Go to those places and, who knows, maybe you'll meet a lesbian with needs similar to your own. But the best advice I can give you is to forget about marrying a woman of any sexual orientation. Be true to yourself. Find yourself a man. That's the only way for a male homosexual to live a happy, "normal" life."

[belverron]

I know that wasn't the point, by the way. But it's something to consider. And you should be considering it.

[Dirty Name]

BS! I said the exact same things in my first posts. ITS DESCRIMINATION ON ALL LEVELS! Tax descrimination. Sex descrimination. Moral descrimination

Nonsense. Gays aren't prohibited from anything on the basis of who they like to have sex with. That question never comes up. Gay people are allowed to (and do) marry opposite sex partners. So how can you make these outrageous claims? The institution is accessible to everyone. Just because gay people don't LIKE the institution as it currently stands is NOT a basis for discrimination.

And I understand your point about taxation. But it's a distraction in this discussion because affects every level of society, not just homosexual marriage. Take it to a different thread already. Sheesh.

[Dirty Name]

You didn't read that link you posted.

I didn't have to read it. The point is made because we are talking about discrimination based on sexual orientation. The article proves that gays ARE allowed to have their marriages recognized by the federal government, and sexual orientation is NOT a consideration when denying marriage rights.

[belverron]

You're right. We have full access to an institution which does not acknowledge our difference. Which act, to me, constitutes discrimination. I can understand how you see it differently.

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name I didn't have to read it. The point is made because we are talking about discrimination based on sexual orientation. The article proves that gays ARE allowed to have their marriages recognized by the federal government, and sexual orientation is NOT a consideration when denying marriage rights.

And you didn't read my next post, where I said I knew that wasn't the point. The above post is in response to #1377, by the way.