Homosexual Marriage

[belverron]

I'm sorry, this post was initially disrespectful.

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: ihaQ Are you saying that if in fact marriage does not promote the act of pro-creation or that if marriage were not government-sanctioned, people would stop making babies alltogether and would become workerbot automatons?

I doubt he is, as he repeatedly stated that drawing that conclusion from his statements is an error. All the statement really means is that, in the absence of the biological considerations, there is no justification for marriage and certainly for none that lead to limiting marriage to sexual partners.

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: ihaQ Not that the state actually has the right to invade and legislate the personal liberties of reproduction and child-care, no matter how great an interest of the state it happens to be. Whether or not the state prefers biological-hetero's over adoptive-homo's is not really of importance nor is it reasonable to turn away willing guardians when children are orphaned.

The liberty of reproduction and child-care? Where did that come from? Where has anyone stated or suggested anything that limits a persons rights to do those things?

[Dirty Name]

Hey, Belverron, at least tell us who you are coughing at when you are being disrespectful... :)

I doubt he is, as he repeatedly stated that drawing that conclusion from his statements is an error. All the statement really means is that, in the absence of the biological considerations, there is no justification for marriage and certainly for none that lead to limiting marriage to sexual partners.

Thanks Mr. P. It's so nice to have some back-up around here.

To answer the question, Mr. Perfecto hit the nail on the head. It is precisely because pro-creation would happen in or out of marriage that the government has a compelling interest to ensure the maximum percentage of children are raised by their biological parents.

There simply isn't any other compelling state interest. Name one if you like, and we can debate it.

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name Hey, Belverron, at least tell us who you are coughing at when you are being disrespectful...

Mr.perfecto.

[mr.perfecto]

Am I really that bad?

[lsbskins1]

Hey, Dirty-

I named some benefits and you didn't debate me. Again, the reasons I stated are the reasons government is involved in marriage, not the reasons marriage exists, just to be clear.

[Dirty Name]

Where are the reasons you listed? I missed them. What post #?

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Look, the government does not get involved in this kind of stuff for superficial reasons. The point in governmental regulation of marriage has to do with the courts(if you difine the rights and responsibilities of marriage, have laws that are as clear as possible, you spend less time arbitrating who gets the house, who is entitled to support, who is not, etc.) and encouraging economic stability (married men have less car accidents, so insurance rates and payments are stabilized, married people are more reliable employees, married people are more likely to look to the future and save, etc.). That is the governments interest, otherwise marriage would be solely a religious institution. It is about social stability. It is about predictability in the system.

Post #1510

[Jack]

Well now, this thread adds a new wrinkle to the discussion here.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Isherwood Well now, this thread adds a new wrinkle to the discussion here.

How so?

Parents should be responsible for children they produce regardless of the parent's sexual orientation or marital status.

[lsbskins1]

The new wrinkle is that we are expected to handle the responsibilities, but no one wants to give us the rights. You can't stand up and cheer that those damn gays are being forced to accept their responsibilities if you , at the same time, hold that they should be denied rights.

[Dirty Name]

Look, the government does not get involved in this kind of stuff for superficial reasons. The point in governmental regulation of marriage has to do with the courts(if you difine the rights and responsibilities of marriage, have laws that are as clear as possible, you spend less time arbitrating who gets the house, who is entitled to support, who is not, etc.) and encouraging economic stability (married men have less car accidents, so insurance rates and payments are stabilized, married people are more reliable employees, married people are more likely to look to the future and save, etc.). That is the governments interest, otherwise marriage would be solely a religious institution. It is about social stability. It is about predictability in the system.

No, no, no. You see, what we are talking about aren't the laws governing a dissolution of marriage. Those would exist regardless of whether or not the government offered the economic benefits. If you look at the list of economic and legal benefits received by married couples, the only truly controversial benefits are the economic benefits. Child adoption by gay couples, while certainly controversial, unfortunately has little to do with marriage because single parents (sadly) are allowed to adopt. So while I would like to include adoption as a benefit of marriage, it's an issue all it's own, marriage or not.

That leaves us almost exclusively with just the economic issues - ability to file a joint tax return and receive tax breaks, for example. So your attempt to explain government involvement as being a result of the courts, divorce, dissolution, and child custody, fails to explain the truly controversial issues that are at stake here - why does the government offer economic incentives to married couples?

That is what I am arguing to prevent here - the elevation of homosexual couples as the literal equivalent of a heterosexual couple - and the economic benefits that would accompany such recognition.

[Dirty Name]

The new wrinkle is that we are expected to handle the responsibilities, but no one wants to give us the rights. You can't stand up and cheer that those damn gays are being forced to accept their responsibilities if you , at the same time, hold that they should be denied rights.

The biological parents are the ones that get the "rights," because they are also the ones who get the responsibilities. Just because one or both parents forfeit those rights doesn't mean they should AUTOMATICALLY transfer to someone else. The state's interest is not served by elevating ANY and ALL parenting structures to the same level as the original, biological parents. All other arrangements are sub-optimal in the eyes of the state (which is to say, legally, and economically).

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Dirty Name That is what I am arguing to prevent here - the elevation of homosexual couples as the literal equivalent of a heterosexual couple - and the economic benefits that would accompany such recognition.

The truth will out itself. You are not concerned that gays will weaken marriage if they are allowed to marry, you are concerned that gays will be given the same benefits as heterosexual couples. You want us to remain second class citizens. You want to deny us what heterosexaul couples take for granted day in and day out and there is no logical basis for that denial. You can not make a case. You talk and talk, but you never show why we should be denied. For, as you have admitted, the purpose is to keep us paying taxes, holding up our end of the responsibility portion of the deal, while systematically denying us the benefits becusae when we pay in and don't get back, it is better for the bottom line. That is not an acceptable position in a country that values freedom and equality.

Really, no cookie for you.... ever.

[TheNegotiator]

I said other... I believe that it is more complex than any one of these options could singularly describe, but that it was definitely a distraction from issues that the government should be focusing on. Rather than doing something about the important issues in the world, they used this as a surefire way to draw out the ideological separations of the populace, to get them so involved in this that they forgot to look at what really matters, and, eventually, divide their opinions over an issue that really shouldn't have made such an impact anyway.

We are still divided over this issue that shouldn't have made that big a difference anyway, and it still is working as an effective blindfold for keeping the true nature of our predicament hidden from many people.

The way things turned out, I think we all got shortchanged by allowing ourselves to be drawn into this debate, and the consequences landed us in a situation which is not at all favorable in any aspect.

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name If you look at the list of economic and legal benefits received by married couples, the only truly controversial benefits are the economic benefits.

Then for Heaven's sake give us the other damned benefits, already. Those are the ones we want. We can worry about demoting the heteros later.

[belverron]

Quote by: TheNegotiator The way things turned out, I think we all got shortchanged by allowing ourselves to be drawn into this debate....

And it really sucks for some of us.

[YourTokah]

Quote by: Dirty Name Same question, Tokah. I think you misunderstand the concept of gender discrimination. Which gender is systematically denied access to marriage? You're answer is obviously "both," but you'd be wrong to say that because circumstantial, case-by-case discrimination is not systematic. Your case is further weakened by the fact that all males (or all females) are not discriminated against. If gender discrimination was the actual effect, it could be proven by examining a male AND a female couple who wish to get married. Since you claim "both" genders are discriminated against, then logically when both genders present themselves for marriage, they should be denied according to your theory.

Here's the deal:
Systematically - Etymology: Late Latin systematicus, from Greek systEmatikos, from systEmat-, systEma
1 : relating to or consisting of a system
2 : presented or formulated as a coherent body of ideas or principles
3 a : methodical in procedure or plan
b : marked by thoroughness and regularity
4 : of, relating to, or concerned with classification;
Case by case discrimination is certainly "related to the system", in that it's the very "system" of laws that provides for said discrimination. This discrimination is definitely presented as a coherent body of ideas or principles, in that "homosexual marriage" is specifically illegal. Discrimination such as this, according the the current leter of the law, is therefore methodical in procedure or plan, and marked by regularity. It is definitely concerned with a classification!

And as for "all males" or "all females" not being discriminated against, and discrimination therefore not existing, consider this: A black male wants to marry a white female. The clerk of the courts refuses to issue the marriage certificate because in that county it is illegal for a black male to marry a white female. Everywhere else, black males are marrying females of whichever race they choose. Just because it only happened to one individual within a protected class, doesn't mean that it wasn't discrimination based on his protected class.

[YourTokah]

Quote by: italiangm How so? Parents should be responsible for children they produce regardless of the parent's sexual orientation or marital status.

So they should be held accountable as parents but not be afforded the same rights as opposite-gender parents? That's a completely unfair double standard. It's like saying Children of God must adhere to all laws regarding freedom of expression and religion, but they won't be recognized as a legal religious institution by the government. Make up your mind.

Either gay couples cannot form family units and should therefore be denied marriage, or they can.