When a child is born to a married woman, the husband is presumed by law to be the father of the child. Makes perfect sense in the case of heterosexual couples. Makes no sense in the case of homosexual couples. Its biology.Quote by: The Bacon Guy
A civil rights issue. Anyone should be able to marry anyone
A distraction from the real issues of government
An unacceptable redefinition of a traditional concept
Morally wrong since homosexuality is morally wrong
A private matter between the couple and their minister
Other-I will explain below
A celebration of diversity
When a child is born to a married woman, the husband is presumed by law to be the father of the child. Makes perfect sense in the case of heterosexual couples. Makes no sense in the case of homosexual couples. Its biology.
Right ... and the likelihood of gay couples bearing expense-laden children is zero ... so if anything, there is less cost to society associated with sterile marriages (including gay) than with strait, fertile couples. Sounds like your starting to catch on ... finally.
Another hopeful post! You could actually VOLUNTARILY partake in the privledges of marriage that you have claimed you are being denied as an unmarried man! Now if only you could come to the point of accepting anyone's choice to voluntarily obtain a license without regard to gender or whatever other prejudice you care to impose on people that don't live up to your moral standards, you might just be a defender of individual freedom instead of an ambassador for increased govermental oversight.
You pay far less, on average, to supply gays with the benefits afforded them for being married than you do to straight couples.
But even in that case, the burden to society is miniscule. Like I said earlier, besides a modest excemption for being a dependant (which doesn't REQUIRE marriage, in many cases), I'd like to know what the burden to the taxpayer is.
The taxpayer bears a MUCH greater burden on society for children that provide healthcare to elderly parents. There are SUBSTANTIAL tax benefits for that relationship that make benefits gay couples receive from taxpayers pale in comparison.
Since Ive made no assertions whatsoever regarding the cost to government of homosexual marriages, not sure of your point.
I'm not comparing homosexual couples to heterosexual couples; I'm comparing married couples with unmarried couples. The ability to properly raise a child, even using your critrion of biological relation, has no relation to marriage.
I shouldn't have to pay for either. There's no reason that a married couple deserves any more benefits than an unmarried couple. Why would I want to expand a system which is unjust in the first place?
Notice how he keeps going back to my girlfriend and I when the discussion is in reference to
But true, just like you, I could marry somebody I didnt want to marry, just to get the benefits.
" increased govermental oversight"???? You are the one advocationg that government license and regulate relationships that have never been licensed or regulated before.
You suffering from short-term memory loss? You've said more than once (or twice) that the unfairness in granting gays the right to a license available to everyone else is somehow justified to you because you are unmarried and not receiving the 'benefits' that the gay married couple would receive. You're so good at quoting yourself, maybe you could surf back the 400 pages of text to find it youself.
Yes, it represents an increase in government involvment when they are allowed to determine eligibility for a license based on the gender of the applicants.
A rather liberal stance for a self-proclaimed conservative to insist the gov't check to make sure the right people are rubbing genitals in the 'right' way, don't you think?
Do you or someone you care about want to marry your sibling or parent? If so, start a thread about it and we can debate the validity of such a proposal. It has no more bearing here than it would 200 yrs ago when marriage was an institution reserved for people of the same religion or race. I can hear the biggots now ... 'if we let blacks marry whites, what's to stop two sisters from marrying their dog'.
That is a valid point, but the government wastes your resources on far less frugal things than a thousand bucks in the form of a write-off to couples who choose to marry. The 30 Billion AIG is about to receive would supply A LOT of couples (of any sexual orientation) with that $1000 deduction.
The validity of the institution of marriage as a whole and how it is regulated is another topic. I think the federal government belongs out of education too, but as long as it IS funding education, it damned well better provide that service equally to people of any persuation.
You've made assertion after assertion about the 'benefits' (your word, not mine) bestowed upon married couples. Benefits have a cost associated to them that you are inferring is coming from the state. Therefore, you have absolutely referenced the expense to society in granting gay marriage as another tired reason to continue to discriminate against individuals.
I still don't expect you to understand my point that you support state-sponsered biggotry though ... I don't think you will suddenly see the forest through the trees.
The government has no concern as to whose genitals you are rubbing, as you need no license to rub genitals. The topic is gay MARRIAGE.
What, more common sense?? Must have doubled up on breakfast and gotten an injection of reason with your OJ this morning.
You are correct, whose genitals rub is no concern to the government ... even (especially) when issuing a license. So encouraging to see you coming around on this issue.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks