Homosexual Marriage

[YourTokah]

Quote by: DirtyName 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 elevation? How about the recognition. The problem with your statement is that it requires a believer or assenting reader to primarily agree or believe that homosexuals are second-class citizens. And they aren't. They're normal citizens like you and I; they happen to also be gay. Kind of like when an individual is an American citizen who happens to also be hispanic or Islamic.

Give some factual data to support your cause. I am not interested in opinions anymore, because they are founded only on an individuals moral or religious beliefs, and discriminatory morals shouldn't have a place in the law. Remember when slavery was outlawed? And then the civil rights movement, women's suffrage.... These things were necessary because there were laws and practices based on discriminatory morals and ideals.

Don't tell me that it's just plain "wrong" for gay couples to marry.

Hoe could such an event possibly weaken the institution of marriage for heterosexual couples. Frankly, with the divorce rate these days, heterosexuals seem to be doing just fine on their own when it comes to weakening the institution of marriage.

Why shouldn't homosexuals be afforded the same economic benefits? They are able to adopt or use various other methods of fertilization, etc. They are held accountable as parents and providers. They can create (legally) successful family units. So why shouldn't they be afforded the same rights as heterosexuals who also marry for a variety of reasons, most wanting children, some never having them.

I don't want to hear baseless claims anymore about how homosexuals will destroy everything bout marriage, family, and the economy if they are allowed to marry. Give me concrete facts, ironclad data, and then I will consider the other side's point of view.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Dirty Name 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).

And as a by the way...

If this was true and the government was interested only in the "keep the biological parents together" sense, no one who had a previous childed marriage would ever be able to claim marrital status again. The original, child-bearing marriage would be the only one recognized under the law, and as you must see and admit, this is not the case. They might make an exception for a second marriage, once it bore a child, but maybe not and never before. So, yet again, you are wrong, wrong, wrong.

[ihaQ]

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.

Pardon me saying, but that's total bullshit. People get married for many diverse reasons, from financial benefits to relationship security. The only way marriage is related to children is when it provides a healthy, monogamous environment for a child to be raised in. Yet still, the essential act of creating children (as opposed to raising children) is only related to marriage through social standards and pressures, all of which superficial.

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?

But the product of procreation - and its welfare - is what represents the compelling state interest. And the state's interest is served when that product is cared for by the very people who were responsible for bringing it into the world in the first place.

I believe he was stating that the state has a right to legislate it's individual interests, one apparently being the care for a child provided by their biological parents, and that this purpose will be inhibited with the state's recognition of homosexual marriage (both statements are either a false premise or an irrelevant conclusion fallacy anyways), when the function of the state has always been to provide for the liberties, welfare and interests of the populace.

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: lsbskins1 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 are clueless. You apparently haven't read many of my previous 75+ pages of discourse on this subject. You are too eager to write me off as "just another" religious zealot/homophobe/hate monger who only wants to suppress homosexuals any way I can. Nonsense.

Your claim that "I don't believe homosexual marriage will weaken traditional marriage" is a completely erroneous conclusion - one that could be avoided by doing a little reading.

One of the primary reasons for opposing homosexual "marriage" is PRECISELY because it will weaken the institution of marriage in the long run.

This has always been one of the pillars of my argument - that whatever legal reason is used to justify gay marriage can also justify any other form of domestic partnership, which will ultimately lead to a society where only a fool lives without the economic benefits of marriage. The concepts of love and sexuality cannot be regulated by the government, thus the state cannot require the existence of either as a prerequisite for granting domestic partnership status. For that matter, I could "marry" my best friend who lives 500 miles away, claiming we are "life partners" and lay claim to the same economic benefits that heterosexual couples get today. Are you telling me there isn't a difference between a traditional, heterosexual marriage as we understand it today, and the idea of "life partners" who merely file the appropriate paperwork in order to lay claim to the benefits?

THAT's the free-for-all gravy train that homosexual marriage will start. Sure, it will take a few years, maybe even a generation or so, but there is nothing that could possibly prevent that from happening, given the legal arguments you are making.

[Dirty Name]

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.

Cry me a river. Sheesh.

The concept of "marriage," legal or otherwise, has nothing to do with getting out what you paid in. Yet that's what you seem to think it is. Unfortunately for you and others who agree with your bizarre spin on reality, homosexuals aren't the only ones who pay in and don't get back equally. Talk to anyone who's never been on welfare or claimed unemployment.

I've used this analogy before, but since you haven't bothered to read any of my other posts, I'll post it here for you:

Hypothetically speaking, the state determines (as it often does) that it's in our best interest, for whatever reason, to subsidize the production of oranges. That is, the state pays a subsidy to anyone who grows oranges and sells them to market.

Then along comes a handful of people who DEMAND that they be given a subsidy for the production of chocolate candy bars. They say, "We don't like to produce oranges. We like to produce candy bars. They taste so sweet and yummy. We deserve the exact same subsidy, since we pay the same taxes as the orange growers."

The state, of course, believes it has a compelling interest in the production of oranges, and so it stimulates the orange production chain via the subsidy. But because there is no compelling state interest in the production of candy bars, they refuse to offer a subsidy. Candy bar lovers are free to produce all the candy bars they want. There is no RESTRICTION on the production of candy bars, but the state has no reason to offer a subsidy just because orange producers get one! Imagine what would happen if the state DID grant the same subsidy to the candy bar folks, in the interest of "equality." Next up, peanut farmers begin demanding "equal" treatment. Then a subsidy for the production of beef jerky. And on and on until the benefit received by the state from subsidizing orange production is significantly reduced.

Ultimately the question must be asked - are the candy bar producers illegally discriminated against if they aren't granted a subsidy?

[Dirty Name]

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.

In terms of the legal benefits, most of them can and/or should be available through a legal contract. The reason many jurisdictions are refusing to recognize them is because of the militant or aggressive approach used by the homosexual lobby - cities, townships, states, and particularly individual citizens are scared to death of the old cliche, "Give them an inch and they take a mile."

And given your own quote, that you'll "worry about demoting heterosexuals later" I'd say it's a fairly reasonable point of view, even if you were joking.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Dirty Name You are clueless. You apparently haven't read many of my previous 75+ pages of discourse on this subject. You are too eager to write me off as "just another" religious zealot/homophobe/hate monger who only wants to suppress homosexuals any way I can. Nonsense. Your claim that "I don't believe homosexual marriage will weaken traditional marriage" is a completely erroneous conclusion - one that could be avoided by doing a little reading. One of the primary reasons for opposing homosexual "marriage" is PRECISELY because it will weaken the institution of marriage in the long run. This has always been one of the pillars of my argument - that whatever legal reason is used to justify gay marriage can also justify any other form of domestic partnership, which will ultimately lead to a society where only a fool lives without the economic benefits of marriage. The concepts of love and sexuality cannot be regulated by the government, thus the state cannot require the existence of either as a prerequisite for granting domestic partnership status. For that matter, I could "marry" my best friend who lives 500 miles away, claiming we are "life partners" and lay claim to the same economic benefits that heterosexual couples get today. Are you telling me there isn't a difference between a traditional, heterosexual marriage as we understand it today, and the idea of "life partners" who merely file the appropriate paperwork in order to lay claim to the benefits? THAT's the free-for-all gravy train that homosexual marriage will start. Sure, it will take a few years, maybe even a generation or so, but there is nothing that could possibly prevent that from happening, given the legal arguments you are making.

I guess I drew you out again. I'm glad to see you admit that you believe that somehow the gender of the married partners is in and of itself a weakening factor. You, of course, can not support this with facts, but you believe it none-the-less. You believe it because your religion informs you that it must be the case, because otherwise your religion would not be hostile to gays. That is enough for you. But, thankfully, it is not enough for our system, which seperates that which is religious tenent, from that which can be suppoted in a scientific or secular way. If you don't like that, move to a theocracy. Just about any fundementalist islamic state should satisfy you.

And where did I once say that people living seperately, with no relationship other than one involving paperwork would qualify for the benefits we speak of? Nowhere, that's where. And despite what you claim, it would be easy to differentiate. How do you think people establish legal recognition for common law marriage. Full of hoey, you are.

[Dirty Name]

And it really sucks for some of us.

Oh, puh-lease. Give me a break. Go ahead and give us your Hallmark Movie Moment(credit to A.C. for that) and tells us why your life sucks so bad just because you don't get to file a joint tax return or collect social security survivor benefits when your lover passes away.

And no matter how gut-wrenching your story is, we all need to keep in mind that these heartbreaking stories are NOT representative of the homosexual population as a whole, and that there are plenty of legal quirks in our system that impact the lives of other non-gay folks and the peculiar circumstances they find themselves in as well.

But go ahead. I've got my listening ears on.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Dirty Name Cry me a river. Sheesh. The concept of "marriage," legal or otherwise, has nothing to do with getting out what you paid in. Yet that's what you seem to think it is. Unfortunately for you and others who agree with your bizarre spin on reality, homosexuals aren't the only ones who pay in and don't get back equally. Talk to anyone who's never been on welfare or claimed unemployment. I've used this analogy before, but since you haven't bothered to read any of my other posts, I'll post it here for you: Hypothetically speaking, the state determines (as it often does) that it's in our best interest, for whatever reason, to subsidize the production of oranges. That is, the state pays a subsidy to anyone who grows oranges and sells them to market. Then along comes a handful of people who DEMAND that they be given a subsidy for the production of chocolate candy bars. They say, "We don't like to produce oranges. We like to produce candy bars. They taste so sweet and yummy. We deserve the exact same subsidy, since we pay the same taxes as the orange growers." The state, of course, believes it has a compelling interest in the production of oranges, and so it stimulates the orange production chain via the subsidy. But because there is no compelling state interest in the production of candy bars, they refuse to offer a subsidy. Candy bar lovers are free to produce all the candy bars they want. There is no RESTRICTION on the production of candy bars, but the state has no reason to offer a subsidy just because orange producers get one! Imagine what would happen if the state DID grant the same subsidy to the candy bar folks, in the interest of "equality." Next up, peanut farmers begin demanding "equal" treatment. Then a subsidy for the production of beef jerky. And on and on until the benefit received by the state from subsidizing orange production is significantly reduced. Ultimately the question must be asked - are the candy bar producers illegally discriminated against if they aren't granted a subsidy?

The difference here, of course, is that your analogy is not accurate. It would be more accurate to say the government denies the subsidy to those who grow oranges but pick them from the top of the tree down instead of the bottom of the tree up. The oranges are still coming to market, they just get there via a slightly different rout. They get the subsidy...No cookie.

[Dirty Name]

I'm glad to see you admit that you believe that somehow the gender of the married partners is in and of itself a weakening factor.

Your recent diatrabe where you likened me to an Islamic fundamentalist, while entertaining, has also confused me. I don't see anywhere in my original quote (which you cited) where I said anything about "gender." Please clarify so I can understand your post in context.

[Dirty Name]

And where did I once say that people living seperately, with no relationship other than one involving paperwork would qualify for the benefits we speak of? Nowhere, that's where.

You didn't say it. And why would you? It's the sort of thing that you must continue to deny because it destroys your argument if you grant that it's true. But let's move on to the next sentence, because that's where the meat of the argument is:

And despite what you claim, it would be easy to differentiate. How do you think people establish legal recognition for common law marriage.

If gay marriage is allowed by law, how can the government be certain that the partners are truly "sexual" partners? Is sexuality a requirement of the law as you would define it? My guess is that the answer is no. Thus, there is nothing to prevent me from marrying my best friend who lives in Texas, while I maintain a residence in Ohio. And if THAT is legal, then there is nothing to prevent college students from "claiming" they are domestic partners while living in the dorms together, just to get some economic benefits out of the deal. How would you write the law so that fraudulent unions such as these are suppressed?

Of course, the current laws and social norms dictate that we treat marriage very seriously. But as soon as marriage becomes "domestic partnership," it is reduced to little more than a delivery mechanism for economic benefits. I am sure there are plenty of gay folks who would treat the relationship with the dignity it deserves, but using the legal arguments you present here (equality, discrimination, etc.) you simply cannot alter the definition and still prevent "marriage" from becoming a joke - nor prevent domestic partnerships from being abused for personal gain. If you disagree, tell me how you'd prevent the scenarios I just described...

[lsbskins1]

Duh, not an oppisite gender pairing, but a same gender pairing. Same sex couple. Gays. Nasty fagots petending to be the same as a clean cut Christian couple of opposite genders. Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Gender, you know, the question that drives this discourse.

Quote by: Dirty Name One of the primary reasons for opposing homosexual "marriage"[u] is PRECISELY because it will weaken the institution of marriage in the long run.

I bolded and underlined your gender mention for you, in case you need help.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Dirty Name Of course, the current laws and social norms dictate that we treat marriage very seriously. But as soon as marriage becomes "domestic partnership," it is reduced to little more than a delivery mechanism for economic benefits. I am sure there are plenty of gay folks who would treat the relationship with the dignity it deserves, but using the legal arguments you present here (equality, discrimination, etc.) you simply cannot alter the definition and still prevent "marriage" from becoming a joke - nor prevent domestic partnerships from being abused for personal gain. If you disagree, tell me how you'd prevent the scenarios I just described...

Ever heard of common law marriage? The legal system handles this question every day, and the world has not come to a screeching halt, nor has the government gone broke from the tax breaks and incentives that apply...

You will just keep retreating into more and more easily destroyed arguements, won't you?

[ihaQ]

If gay marriage is allowed by law, how can the government be certain that the partners are truly "sexual" partners?

It remains a fact that males and females who are not sexual partners nor romantically involved in any way get married for the financial benefits.

But as soon as marriage becomes "domestic partnership," it is reduced to little more than a delivery mechanism for economic benefits.

If this is true then there should be a characteristic or specific implication of the word 'marriage' that dictates love and procreation where domestic partnership does not. Your argument seems all to be coming from meager little predictions that are out-dated in their perception of the conditions surrounding marriage.

[Dirty Name]

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.

But a more accurate analogy would be a black person wanting to marry another black person - and that couple being denied. And then a white person wanting to marry a white person - and that couple being denied. Since there is no specific race being treated differently from others, no illegal discrimination exists.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Dirty Name Thus, there is nothing to prevent me from marrying my best friend who lives in Texas, while I maintain a residence in Ohio.

Nothing prevents this anyway. My sister lives about a mile down the street from me, while her husband lives with his mother in South Carolina. He lives there at this time because he can make more money there, supporting his wife and childen who live in a four bedroom house in a section of the country where property values are cheaper. He does not pay his mother rent and therefore can support is family in a more comfortable fashion. He is doing exactally what you claim he should be doing, yet doing it in a way you claim is a positive danger. How is that?

[Dirty Name]

I bolded and underlined your gender mention for you, in case you need help.

I'm still struggling to understand your point. You stated that I believe the "gender" of the married couple is in and of itself, a weakening factor. I don't believe you can support that conclusion from my statements. I never said anything of the sort, you are putting words in my mouth, either on purpose or by accident. Either way, it shows you still don't even have a basic understanding of my argument.

And I'm growing weary of your continued assertion that I'm just some sort of radical gay hater. Why don't you stop trying to attack me personally and stick to the ARGUMENT.

[lsbskins1]

So you do not believe that a same sex marrige is something that society should guard against? And define "same sex" without introducing gender. You have never given any reason that I have not shown to be false that supports your assertion that same sex marriages are destuctive to what the government is trying to encourage in sanctioning marriage. What is left besides a bigotted predisposition to attack said unions? Tell me please.

[Dirty Name]

He is doing exactally what you claim he should be doing, yet doing it in a way you claim is a positive danger. How is that?

My assertion is that the circumstance you describe regarding your sister is somewhat rare. Marriage, as it currently exists, has a stigma about it - where people try NOT to enter into it lightly because it carries a number of significant responsibilities, property rights, etc.

But under any definition of marriage where any two people can form a domestic partnership simply by declaring themselves "married," there is nothing stopping college roomates from declaring themselves as domestic partners. Once you make marriage all about benefits, rather than about a lifelong committment to one another formed around the nuclear family, it changes everything.

I understand that you believe in your heart that homosexuals just want to be able to make a life-long committment to one another AND receive benefits. Unfortunately, there is no way to alter society's definition of marriage and still expect it to be viewed the same way. No sooner than we change the definition of marriage, then some group will be out there, using your EXACT SAME ARGUMENT, demanding that the state grant benefits to any two people who provide mutual care and support for one another, including medically dependent parents and their live-in children.

On what basis would you argue that homosexual relationships are somehow different from these?

If you cannot provide some substantial difference (like I can for heterosexuals vs. homosexuals) then ultimately you are forced to accept the FACT that there is no legal reason to exclude ANYONE from forming a domestic partnership and laying claim to the benefits. There would be nothing preventing people for forming these partnerships purely for the purpose of collecting benefits.

[lsbskins1]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and take "Pig-Headed ignorance and complete stupidity off the list of possible answers to my question...or maybe not, depending on your response.