Homosexual Marriage

[Dirty Name]

But maybe they wouldn't fight so hard for that damn inch if we gave them the basic rights they deserve. Maybe (ok, usually they are) they are too forceful and such, but who can blame them? They've watched everyone fight and recieve the rights they deserved, but they want it now--without the waiting and all that bull shite other minorities delt with.

Many of the rights demanded by gays are also denied to straights as well - hospital visitation rights, property rights, etc. are also denied to heterosexual people who aren't married. It stands to reason that anyone should be able to designate the person of their choosing to be the executor of their living will, the beneficiary of their estate, etc. regardless of marriage.

So this militant battle being waged by certain elements of the gay lobby is really about something MORE than just securing the fairy tale (pun intended) parts of marriage. Whether that be a universal declaration of sexual orientation as a protected class, or some other motive along those lines, I'm not sure. But the methods used by them aren't very reassuring.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Dirty Name Give me just one example method the government could use to prevent widescale unions of convenience. Sure, they exist today, but in extremely limited fashion because "marriage" isn't JUST about any two people who care for one another. It's about way more than that, and society, for the most part, respects that. But you are asking for a complete redefinition so that procreation is stripped from the equation and legal benefits are granted to two people who care for one another. You may WANT it to be about love and long-term committment, you may even BELIEVE people will still resepect the institution after it is altered. But the bottom line reality is that when "marriage" as we know it is altered to be little more than benefits for two people who care for one another - basically a "love" subsidy to anyone who wants to say they love someone else, then it opens up all sorts of opportunities for abuse. If you can't articulate what would prevent large-scale abuse of the institution (when I can do that for the current definition) then there is something fundamentally wrong with your argument.

Hum, lets see if I can mannage to pull this off. Marriage is what prevents it. We are not talking about registering domestic partnerships here, we are talking about marriage. We are talking about extending marriage rights to (depending on estimates) 2 to 10% more of the population. Any abuse of the system you fear already exists at at least a 90% exposure rate and possibly at a 98% exposure rate, so that kinda lets the air out of your argument right there. What prevents these large scale scams now. If you marry your college room-mate for convience, you have exposed yourself to community property laws, if the "right" person comes along, you have to wait an average of 2 years before that marriage can be disolved. Divorces cost money. All of these things prevent people intering into the institution lightly. I have given you more than one limiting factor and shown that your reasoning is even faulty when it comes to level of added exposure you imply. We are not talking about registering a domestic partnership. We are talking about marriage. College roommates would have to get MARRIED, get it. Those people, living states away, would have to get MARRIED. To split, they would have to DIVORCE.

[Dirty Name]

if the "right" person comes along, you have to wait an average of 2 years before that marriage can be disolved.

False. No way it takes that long, unless you live in a state with some strict laws.

If you marry your college room-mate for convience, you have exposed yourself to community property laws

False. Pre-nuptial agreement takes care of that.

Divorces cost money

No-fault divorces cost very little.

All of these things prevent people intering into the institution lightly.

Only those people who take the institution as the LIFETIME COMMITTMENT it's supposed to be! That's the part you don't get. Your proposed change in the law radically alters the concept of marriage so that it's not about FAMILY (which happens to last virtually forever), and is all about "love" and "mutual support." That is the CRUCIAL DIFFERENCE here:

Love and mutual support vs. Family and Lifetime Committment

Marriage is about the latter, not the former. The former merely helps us achieve the latter more easily. Not so under any change in the definition.

[grace5]

Its just another case for the"selected few" to have there choice (and it is just a choice ) forced upon folks that do NOT want it,as has been shown, by the voting states.

I reject the silly idea that your sexual choice gives you "race rights".

[lsbskins1]

Most states require that you live separately for the statutory period of time. This means no cohabitation. Separation means residing (and sleeping) in different locations at all times. For my bother, this process took 2 years and the divorce was uncontested, no-fault. The costs to him were not inconsequential, when you considered lawyers fees and court fees. No children and still, it was an incredibly complicated mess, and I doubt he would agree that the pocess was as simple as you imply.

No divorce I've ever been a witness too has ever been as uncomplicated as you imply. My mother has been divorced 3 times (part of the reason I take the institution so seriously) and of the friends and family I have known who have gone through the process, none would call it easy.

Your contention that extending marriage rights to gays would create a atmosphere of insincerity in attitutes towards marriage is specious. To the extent that that attitute could exist, it already does exist. My mom, 3 times divorced, is pretty heterosexual. The horse, as they say, is already out of the barn. You can not deny me because alot of people are stupid or, to give some of them the benefit of the doubt, unlucky.

And, to put the icing on the cake, the mutual care and support v. lifetime family commitment model you offer is your own construct. It is your view of what the intitution should be and not part of any legal code. You may argue that constuct's merits from a moral or religious view-point, but that matters not a whit in our current conversation. The issue is, how does the law apply to all citizens and is the law being applied equally? By your construct, the government could have justified continued segregation, because the costs to the government would ballon by elliminating the lower cost, less effective education given to African-Americans. It was only defacto discrimination, resulting from the unintended inequlity in seperate facilities, not codified discrimmintion. That is the essence of the issue here.

[Dirty Name]

And, to put the icing on the cake, the mutual care and support v. lifetime family commitment model you offer is your own construct.

Then why does the federal government currently offer economic incentives to married couples? Did they have some extra cash lying around, and decided to give it away to the first group they came across? Did they purposely create the economic benefit in order to single out homosexuals? Did they want to create an incentive for people to fall in love?

My point is that these benefits didn't automatically confer themselves... they were intentionally created for a reason. Do you know what that reason is? HINT: It's not ANY reason that would only benefit the couples themselves. Using your own words, the STATE has a compelling interest, and it's not to make sure people fall in love and live happily-ever-after. What is the state's interest in offering those incentives?

[Dirty Name]

To the extent that that attitute could exist, it already does exist.

While I would agree that there are people who hold that attitude, your statement above is precisely the opposite of what I am suggesting... My point is that such an attitude, while limited in today's society, will increase in magnitude in future generations, because the change in definition to accomodate gays alters what marriage is about. It ceases to be about family. It becomes a domestic partnership that need not ever become a procreative family.

Ask yourself this question - given the point that divorce in some areas is both difficult and expensive, why do you suppose that is? Why do our laws make it so much trouble to terminate a marriage?

When you've answered that one, I have a follow-up question for you.

[lsbskins1]

I have told you this again and again. The state encourages marriage for the finicial benefits marriage brings to society. Those benefits flow from the stabilizing effect marriage has on individuals. Those benefits issue forth reguardless of whether or not the marriage produces children. They are more profound the longer lasting and more stable the marriage is, but the law does not require that the marriage last a certain amount of time, nor does it require offspring for the tax breaks, etc., to become and stay effectual. The government's interest is the stabilizing effect marriage has on individuals and it's attendant finincial benefits to society. To get the benefits the government offers, one does not have to stay married for a certain amount of time, nor does one have to produce offspring, these factors are not part of the legal code. They are not codified, therefore, they are irrelevant to this question. I repeat myself because you seem to miss stuff easily. I have told you the interest the government has in encouraging marriage, twice in this posting alone. You keep bringing up the state's compelling interest. That has to do with the denial of protection or benifit under the law, not the granting of benefits. I get so wrapped up in repeating points to you that I will admit I have neglected to make that point before. The must have an over-riding interest to single out a group or behavior for special laws of limitation (sodomy laws, anti-drug laws). This logic does not apply when the government chooses to encourage behavior but it does apply if they hoose to exclude someone from receiving the offered benefit. Simple.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Dirty Name Ask yourself this question - given the point that divorce in some areas is both difficult and expensive, why do you suppose that is? Why do our laws make it so much trouble to terminate a marriage?

Because the government is seeking to encourage the stability of marriage and the stability that marriage brings to people's behavior. Easy in, easy out does not encourage stability, it encourages instability.

[Dirty Name]

The government's interest is the stabilizing effect marriage has on individuals and it's attendant finincial benefits to society.

To test your theory, let's strip the issues of family planning, conception, pregnancy, childbirth, child-rearing and family from the equation. What we are left with is just two people, period. Can you please cite a single example of what the government has to gain (or lose) as a result of those two people being in a stable relationship? In short, why are stable relationships, absent any considerations of procreation, of any compelling interest to the government?

[Dirty Name]

Because the government is seeking to encourage the stability of marriage and the stability that marriage brings to people's behavior. Easy in, easy out does not encourage stability, it encourages instability.

But, as I said in the last post, if children and/or family planning aren't involved, unstable relationships don't mean a hill of beans to the state. The government doesn't care if Susan breaks up with her boyfriend of 5 years. It doesn't mean a hill of beans to anyone except Susan, her immediate circle of friends and maybe her boyfriend. Relationships absent the concept of procreation are meaningless in the eyes of the state.

[lsbskins1]

Look at insurance actuary tables and the cost of insuring a 25 year old married man v. a 25 year old unmarried man. Look at work attendence of married v. unmarried individuals. Look at the rate of savings of married v. unmarried people. Children could and probably do enhance the benefits, but marriage in and of itself, children or no, provides this stabilizing factor in peoples lives. That is what the government is encouraging. That's the third time this question has been asked and answered. Will we have to do it again? You premise is flawed. There are attendant benefits to marriage to society over and above the benefits of procreation and child rearing. I can not help it if you choose to ignore those benefits. You lack of acknowledgement does not equal their lack of existence.

[Dirty Name]

Look at insurance actuary tables and the cost of insuring a 25 year old married man v. a 25 year old unmarried man. Look at work attendence of married v. unmarried individuals. Look at the rate of savings of married v. unmarried people. Children could and probably do enhance the benefits, but marriage in and of itself, children or no, provides this stabilizing factor in peoples lives.

But WHY? Why does "marriage" alone provide a stabilizing factor? Why do 25 year old married men get lower rates than unmarried people? It's not "just because they are married!" It's because, generally speaking, 25 year old married men have the responsibilities of an entire FAMILY, which includes a wife and children. If no children are present yet, they are still PLANNING on fatherhood. Don't you see the relationship between procreation and the attitudes that come with it?

Again, test your theory... Absent the concept of procreation, what is the difference between a 25 year old and his girlfriend of 5 years, and a 25 year old married guy and his wife? What on earth would be the difference between the two if children were NEVER going to be part of the equation?

Stability for the couple by themselves is of no -or very little - benefit to the state. Even were I to grant you this point (which I am not), it doesn't change the FACT that the concept of procreation and a stable nuclear family represents a FAR GREATER INTEREST than just a couple alone, and you'd be dishonest to suggest otherwise.

[lsbskins1]

There are attendant benefits of marriage to society over and above the benefits of procreation and child rearing. I can not help it if you choose to ignore those benefits. Your lack of acknowledgement does not equal their lack of existence.(Repeat)

Children may enhance the benefits, but having children is not a requirement to gain a benefit. (Repeat)

These issues are not a part of the law that grants the benefits( ie, you are not required to have children or be married for a certain period of time to file joint returns or make medical decisions for your spouce, etc.), so these points are irrelevant because the government does not itself elevate them to a standard of requirement for the benefits.(Repeat)

How many times do I have to repeat myself? I do not mind engaging in useful debate, but going round and round with you is like talking to my 12 year old nephew. " I hate the new puppy." Don't hate the puppy, it is not his fault he has to go outside to pee. "I still hate the new puppy, cause I get yelled at when I don't take him out." You don't get yelled at because the puppy is evil. " I still hate the puppy". It is one thing coming from an immature child, but I presume you are an adult...

[ihaQ]

What I'm saying is that the state's compelling interest is in maximizing the percentage of children raised by their biological parents. And this dovetails perfectly with your last sentence where you say "the function of the state is to provide for the liberties, welfare and interests of the populace."

Great, this argument assumes that changing the definition of marriage consequent of the legal union of homosexuals will cause the number of offspring rejection rates to increase. This is a Non-Sequitur Fallacy. as the conclusion is unsupported by the premises.

My other point is that homosexual marriages do not represent any compelling state interest at all. If I am wrong, please name what that compelling interest would be.

State interest: granting liberties based upon the general equality of cultural groups.

[Dirty Name]

Children may enhance the benefits, but having children is not a requirement to gain a benefit.

You are correct. But what IS a requirement to gain a benefit is that you have the potential to have a child. And that makes all the difference.

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: lbskins1 How many times do I have to repeat myself?

Over and over until you finally realize what you are saying is without merit or evidence. If this was an audio debate you'd sound like a cackling parrot because you don't say anything of any substance, you just keep talking in circles. Allow me to prove it to you:

When I asked you what the compelling interest to society was in offering a marriage incentives, you went on a short and ill-conceived diatribe about how the concept of "compelling interest" only applies when restricting rights from certain groups. Here is your exact quote:

Quote by: lsbskins1 You keep bringing up the state's compelling interest. That has to do with the denial of protection or benifit under the law, not the granting of benefits. I get so wrapped up in repeating points to you that I will admit I have neglected to make that point before. The must have an over-riding interest to single out a group or behavior for special laws of limitation (sodomy laws, anti-drug laws). This logic does not apply when the government chooses to encourage behavior but it does apply if they hoose to exclude someone from receiving the offered benefit. Simple.

If the logic of compelling state interest doesn't apply when the government chooses to encourage behavior, then on what basis or rationale are you suggesting our laws are crafted upon? To suggest that the concept of legitimate or compelling state's interest is illogical or "out of place" just because a particular law isn't discriminatory is absurd on its face.

More importantly, if the state wishes to alter a traditional institution that has served as a critical pillar of that society for 229+ years, it is not unreasonable to expect the state to cite a compelling interest for doing so. If you don't like my terminology, then just answer this reprhased question as part of our ongoing dialogue:

"What does society have to gain by offering economic incentives to homosexual couples?"

Your answers thus far have been less than insightful, and virtually identical. The examples I cite below are a comprehensive representation of your failure to answer my specific question:

The government's interest is the stabilizing effect marriage has on individuals and it's attendant finincial benefits to society.

There are attendant benefits of marriage to society over and above the benefits of procreation and child rearing.

So let's probe a bit deeper even though this has been asked before - witnesseth:

Quote by: dirty name Why does "marriage" alone provide a stabilizing factor?

I specifically stated that you need to answer the question by removing any possible benefits of procreation. Here then, is your disappointing response:

There are attendant benefits of marriage to society over and above the benefits of procreation and child rearing. I can not help it if you choose to ignore those benefits. Your lack of acknowledgement does not equal their lack of existence.(Repeat)

OK, fine. But WHAT ARE THEY? You have never enumerated them. Citing "stability" as a financial benefit to society owes it's primary justification to the concept of procreation! Absent that concept, relationship stability among adults is of little value to the state - unless you can cite an example of how/why it does have value to society as a whole. THAT's what I'm waiting for you to elaborate on.

So go ahead, bellyache about having to repeat yourself. But the record now reflects that you never truly answered my question, you simply talk in circles.

[Dirty Name]

Great, this argument assumes that changing the definition of marriage consequent of the legal union of homosexuals will cause the number of offspring rejection rates to increase. This is a Non-Sequitur Fallacy. as the conclusion is unsupported by the premises.

You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Which non-sequitur fallacy do you accuse me of? I don't think the term non-sequitur applies here, because if anything, you are really questioning the conclusion, not the logic I used to reach it. I've laid out my position based on cause and effect. You may not agree that the effects will be what I have claimed, but even if I am wrong, it's not necessarily an error in logic, it's simply a bad prediction. Are football prognosticators guilty of logical fallacies when they incorrectly predict one team will beat another? Of course not. Thus, it's clear you are trying to sound too smart for your own breeches. Next time you accuse me of a non-sequitur, at least be kind enough to specify which one and then prove it.

State interest: granting liberties based upon the general equality of cultural groups.

Too bad the Supreme Court has ruled that issues of equal outcomes and exclusion can be overlooked when there is a more compelling state interest.

Even Justice O'Connor stated in Lawrence v. Texas that "preserving the traditional institution of marriage" is a legitimate state interest. She goes on to say that, "Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations--the asserted state interest in this case (Lawrence)--other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group.

So it would seem that while promoting your own view of equality could be a state interest, it is perfectly legal - due to other, more compelling state interests - to exclude certain forms of marriage.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Dirty Name Even Justice O'Connor stated in Lawrence v. Texas that "preserving the traditional institution of marriage" is a legitimate state interest. She goes on to say that, "Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations--the asserted state interest in this case (Lawrence)--other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group.

This is what is known as Dicta. The judges opinion, a reason behind thinking, but not part of the law or controlling on future decisions in any way. Interesting perhaps, but not relavant when establishing what the ruling principle actually is.

[Dirty Name]

This is what is known as Dicta. The judges opinion, a reason behind thinking, but not part of the law or controlling on future decisions in any way. Interesting perhaps, but not relavant when establishing what the ruling principle actually is.

Fascinating. But it doesn't alter the conclusion in any way, shape or form. The legal precedent exists that would allow legal discrimination of a particular group as long as there is a compelling state interest to do so. And if you think I put any stock in the opinion of O'Connor, I have not - especially since she is now irrelevant.