Homosexual Marriage

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Dirty Name 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,compelling state interest does not equal "because that is the way we have always done it." Compelling state interest does not equal "because it is cheaper this way." The state must show, that by allowing gay marriage, society will be positively harmed in a significant way. The state must show this. The individuals petitioning for remedy do not have to show that allowing their rights will not harm in any way. The state must justify the denial. I do not have to prove that I will not harm you, you have to prove how I will harm you.

[YourTokah]

Quote by: Dirty Name 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.

My analogy works. Once upon a time, black people couldn't marry black people, and it was because they were black. It was discrimination then. And once upon a time, a black person couldn't marry a white person because they were black, which was discrimination.

So what if two men want to marry eachother and they are of different races. They would be prohibited from marrying based on.... WHAT? What would the government say? Either they would admit that they disciminate against individuals wishing to marry same gender individuals on the basis that they are the same gender, or they admit that they discriminate against homosexuals, or they don't give a reason and then it could be racial discrimination for all anyone could say for sure.

You keep repeating the whole claim that it isn't discrimination because it's not happeneing to only One person or One gender. If you were gay I'm sure you'd feel differently. It's just semantics that you're using to make your "case".

Tell me why gay couples should not be allowed to marry. Tell me why they will weaken the institution of marriage. No more semantics.

[YourTokah]

Quote by: Dirty Name 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.

Did you check out the link Isherwood provided? Homosexual couples can and DO create families. Not all gay couples do, but then, not all heterosexual couples do, either. Not all heterosexual couples can have their own biological children. There are plenty of ways to create a family besides one spouse impregnating the other. If gay couples are allowed to adopt and raise children, or have children through surrogacy, in vitro, etc., then they should be allowed to marry because they can create a family and have a lifetime commitment just like any hetero couple.

[YourTokah]

Quote by: Dirty Name 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?

The state offers those incentives to rpevent single-parent homes. Single parents, especially mothers, often have to utilize more beneits granted by the state to successfully raise their child or children. However, once again, the same thing could take place in a homosexual household. They could split and leave a single parent, or a single gay individual could decide to be artificially inseminated.

[lsbskins1]

Dirty-

A few of your points:

1. "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?"

2. "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."

3."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."

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

5. "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."

6. "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."

Now, I will respond...

1. Number one, they are married. That shows a different level of commitment to each other within communities that have the ability to marry. It shows that they have moved up a notch in the way they view their relationship. It does not mean they want or even intend in the future to have children. It means they see themselves together in the long run. The difference (apart from the intention to have children) is a legal and hopefully an emotional joining and commitment. That exists regardless of parental intent. You asked for the difference in the ralationship, not for the difference in what the government intends to reward, so I have in fact, answered your question. But, I will say (again), that if the government's intent was to reward biological parenting units, the benefits would not become effective unless and until they had children. It would be easy for the government to make the distinction, because all they would have to do would be to print "Married with Children Filing Jointly" on the appropriate tax forms. You claim some huge burden that the government is avoiding by not questioning a hetero couple's fertility, and if that was the only way to accomplish that end, you might have a point. But alas, it is not, so the question remains, if the government interest is in rewarding biological parenting units, why is not the method of opperation? The answer is, that that is a side benefit, or maybe a desired after effect, but it is not the intend of sanctioning marriage.

2.What do you present, other than your contention, that the nuclear family represents a FAR GREATER INTEREST ? Nothing. Again, if this was the intent, why is it not the practice? It would be easy to have all necessary tax forms, etc. to specify. There is no difficult barrier, much less an insurmountable barrier to having this be the test of the benefits. If that was the intent, the laws, the courts and the precidents would reflect that, but they do not. You may wish it was the intent, but it is not. For an analogy, if you want to encourage your child to make the honor roll, would you reward him for simply bringing his text books home from school or would you wait for the test scores to come home and reward him for the A's. Bringing the books home is a positive step in that direction, but it is not the desired end. He can bring the books home every day, and never study what is inside. If the governments's intent was the honor roll, why are they rewarding bringing the books home? They are rewarding the books because what they intend to encourage is a level of responsible behavior, they want people on the right path, and they figure it is more productive to bring as many people into the realm of responsibilty as possible. The standard is low, because the purpose is not to gaurentee or even seek perfection, but to maximize everyone's potential. Some people will never have kids, some will have too many, some will have as many as they can afford. The more people you have living in a stable, productive lifestyle, the greater the chances that society itself will be stable and productive, and this, in and of itself, is the goal. Poo-poo it if you like, but it is the purpose of government to a large extent (Preamble- promote the general welfare-secure the blessings of liberty[not progeny], to ourselves and our posterity).

3.Prove it. See above.

4. Society gains the same things by encouraging stability and responsibility taking in the homosexual community as by encouraging it in the larger community. See 2.

5. Stability = Greater productivity, kids or no. Stability = predictability, kids or no. Predictability lessens societal upheaval and makes it easier for people to pursue economic and other goals. These answers, in and of themselves show a positive gain for society and do not depend on the pressence of children, actual or potential to be positive goods. Actual or potential children may enhance one's need or desire to have stability, but they do not create the only positive reason to seek stability. You keep insisting that that is the case, and you are just wrong.

6. I may not give you the answer you desire, but I answer your questions. I give you viable, reasonable answers to your questions. You respond by claiming I do not satisfy some means test that exists in your own personal world-view. I have shown ways and reasons stability is desirable absent children, but you are not satisfied with any answer that does not affirm your preconcieved ideal. I will stop now. I will not try to convince you anymore that you need not hate the puppy.

No cookie. No trap that altered my view-point, nor destroyed any contention of mine.

[Dirty Name]

Tell me why gay couples should not be allowed to marry.

That's NOT the question. Go ahead, accuse me of semantics. The fact of the matter is that you continue to frame this debate as though gays are somehow persecuted when that is simply not true.

The real question is this: Why should society elevate homosexual marriage to the same level as traditional heterosexual marriage? Are they literally equal, or are you just demanding philosophical equality?

Answer that question first, then I can better address your question.

[Dirty Name]

But, I will say (again), that if the government's intent was to reward biological parenting units, the benefits would not become effective unless and until they had children.

This statement captures the fundamental essence of your misunderstanding. I have never EVER claimed that the government wishes to reward biological parenthood. I have said that it wishes to strengthen the relationship of the biological parents, and that begins LONG before children are conveived. You aren't seeing the big picture, all you see is $rewards$ and the fact that you don't qualify for them, while I see incentives that stimulate and encourage the long-term marital committment that is beneficial for the child and therefore, the state. Once you understand this, the rest isn't that hard to follow. Stop thinking of my position as a reward program for getting married/having kids. It's really just a subsidy to encourage males and females to stay together and forge a solid relationship so that when the kids do arrive, the family stays together.

As an interesting aside, if this policy worked 100% of the time, homosexuals would NEVER have children, EVER.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Dirty Name As an interesting aside, if this policy worked 100% of the time, homosexuals would NEVER have children, EVER.

As an interesting aside, wouldn't that make you happy as a pig in shit. Good thing you don't run the world.

Quote by: Dirty Name I see incentives that stimulate and encourage the long-term marital committment that is beneficial for the child and therefore, the state.

If you were seeing the "big picture", you would realize that you cut your nose off to spite your face if you encourage long term commitment only amoung a sellect class. You are not seeing the bigger picture when you refuse to acknowledge that society can gain by encouraging stability in the entire population. You are taking a narrow view when you allow your personal religious conviction to dictate public policy in reguards to this issue. I don't have the limited view, nor the limited application, you do.

Oh, and as you can see, I have a hard time actually disengaging from any debate.

[italiangm]

Quote by: FIFI There will ALWAYS be people determined to mis-use the system and all that. Why should we limit the masses rights because of a small percentage of wrong doers??

Small percentage of wrong-doers? Over 50% of marriages end in divorce. What makes those folks exempt from being classified as misusing the system?

[Dirty Name]

Homosexual couples can and DO create families.

This is the biggest LIE of all time. It's simply not true, you just want me and everyone else to ignore the painful truth. The undisputable FACT is that homosexuals couples CANNOT and DO NOT "create" families.

Literally 100% of the time, a third party, outside of the homosexual relationship, is involved. That third person MUST be willing to forfeit his/her LEGAL RIGHTS in order for the homosexual couple to become the guardians. It doesn't matter if we are talking about artificial insemination, an external heterosexual relationship, or surrogate motherhood, it is literally impossible for a homosexual couple to "create" a family.

What you mean to say is that homosexual couples can and do acquire families. But whether or not they should do so is a debate for another time and place.

There are plenty of ways to create a family besides one spouse impregnating the other.

Name one of those ways that doesn't involve a breakdown in a heterosexual relationship, or a biological mother and/or father forfeiting their legal rights to the child. You can't, and that's the point. The state has a compelling interest to encourage people to take responsibility for their progeny. If the state sanctions a sub-optimal solution by elevating it to the same level as the optimal solution, the state works against it's own interests by diluting the effectiveness of the incentives offered. I go back to the oranges vs. candy bars analogy - the state wishes to encourage orange production by offering a subsidy. The candy bar crowd demands "equality." If the state capitulates in favor of the candy-bar crowd by offering benefits to anyone who wants to produce anything, the entire point of the subsidy is lost, the state ends up paying more money, and fails to achieve the goals set by the original subsidy program to begin with.

[Dirty Name]

Small percentage of wrong-doers? Over 50% of marriages end in divorce. What makes those folks exempt from being classified as misusing the system?

Nothing makes them exempt from that classification. The fact is they ARE abusing and misusing the system. But to fix the problem, we should strengthen it by forcing people to take it seriously. Ending "no-fault divorce" is a step in the right direction. Implementing "covenant marriage" laws, where couples married under this law would be required to jump through additional hoops prior to getting divorced, is another.

[Jack]

As an interesting aside, if this policy worked 100% of the time, homosexuals would NEVER have children, EVER.

I could marry a lesbian and we could have a biological child. I could marry a straight woman and our children would have one gay parent.
Pursuasion isn't always obvious.

[Dirty Name]

Tell me why they will weaken the institution of marriage.

Here's just one of many reasons:

Back to the orange/candy bar analogy again. It's quite instructive. Now, clear you head for a second and just pay attention to where I'm going with this...

IF you believe that incentives for the production of orange would serve to boost orange production by making it economically safer for farmers to grow oranges, then it stands to reason that any dilution of those incentives will negatively impact orange production.

The same can be said for marriage. The state currently offers specific incentives for a particular type of marriage, because the state believes those specific types of marriages are more beneficial than others. If the state later alters the law and pays incentives to any forms of marriage, the original incentives lose some value, which in turn negatively impacts the institution of traditional marriage. How much? No more than a counterfeit $50 bill negatively impacts the value of the real one in your wallet. Not enough that one would notice right away. But enough that the government believes it's a serious problem that needs a special department just for dealing with it.

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: Isherwood I could marry a lesbian and we could have a biological child. I could marry a straight woman and our children would have one gay parent. Pursuasion isn't always obvious.

Then you would be BISEXUAL, not homosexual.

[YourTokah]

Quote by: Dirty Name IF you believe that incentives for the production of orange would serve to boost orange production by making it economically safer for farmers to grow oranges, then it stands to reason that any dilution of those incentives will negatively impact orange production.

First of all, who says these incentives will boost orange production? Economically safer? If farmers aren't selling enough oranges then it's because people aren't eating them, so we shouldn't spend tax money to help them grow even more. Dilution of those incentives, i.e., sharing them with apple farmers (which the public might be eating, btw) would only allow the farmers to do what they had always done, without the extra help, or adapt and evolve according to the changing economic climate of society. If they don't want oranges, grow apples.

Personally.........


I like grapes.

[Dirty Name]

The state offers those incentives to prevent single-parent homes. Single parents, especially mothers, often have to utilize more beneits granted by the state to successfully raise their child or children.

EXACTLY!!! YES!!! This is correct. Maybe lsbskins1 will give you my cookie.

However, once again, the same thing could take place in a homosexual household. They could split and leave a single parent, or a single gay individual could decide to be artificially inseminated.

Only AFTER the biological parent relationship breaks down. THAT is my point. You are talking about a secondary tier of responsibility - not the primary tier.

[Jack]

Then you would be BISEXUAL, not homosexual.

No, I might be outwardly behaving as a heterosexual or bisexual, but I'd still be a homosexual. That would be like saying every prisoner or drunken sailor who has ever had a homosexual encounter must really be gay.
Behavior does not always mirror preference or personality.

[Dirty Name]

Oh, and as you can see, I have a hard time actually disengaging from any debate.

That's fine by me. It's actually refreshing to discuss this subject with someone as passionate about the subject as you, and I believe that even though we repeat ourselves quite often, that there is no harm in that - it's called dialogue. We often miss things in conversations, and repeating a point over and over again is sometimes necessary in order to make sure we all understand one another.

I get accused of that quite often here, but it's important for folks to know that if I bring up a weak point and someone shows me where it's flawed, I'm not going to bring it up again, or I'm at least going to correct the flaw before I throw it out there again. That has happened a handful of times during the past few months, but the arguments I continue to repeat simply haven't been countered to the point where I have been convinced they are flawed.

So keep plugging away - keep getting pissed off now and then, that's OK. One of my primary reasons for being here is to educate people that there is FAR MORE to the gay marriage debate than just some morality-based rejection of homosexuality in general. I think conservatives who dismiss the idea of homosexual marriage simply because they believe it is immoral are doing a great disservice to their own side of the issue. The fact is that there are ample SECULAR reasons for opposing gay marriage, and even if you don't agree with me, I can't be dismissed by simply painting me as religious zealot. Yes, I'm a Christian. Yes, I believe homosexuality is a sin. But I also believe that those religious idiots who hold up signs reading "GOD HATES FAGS" should be denounced and ridiculed as the idiots they are. There isn't a single verse anywhere in the Bible that such people could point to which would support that belief. The fact is that the Bible teaches us that homosexuality is an immoral practice, right up there with adultery and other sexual impurities committed by heterosexuals.

So, stay here, keep firing away, and maybe we can ultimately forge some sort of agreement on just how the law should deal with the issue.

[Dirty Name]

If farmers aren't selling enough oranges then it's because people aren't eating them, so we shouldn't spend tax money to help them grow even more.

You've identified only one of many possible reasons why the state might decide to subsidize orange production. At the risk of taking this subject off topic (purely for the purpose of promoting a better understanding of the analogy), there are sound economic reasons for subsidizing the production of oranges. Here are several:

1) Weather conditions make orange production too risky for farmers. A season of low temperatures could kill the crop.

2) A spike in labor costs might have a similar effect.

3) Insects might become a problem.

More importantly, for the purpose of THIS analogy, the state has data that shows a significant increase in the burden placed on the state when its citizens are vitamin C deficient. Thus, it hatches a plan to subsidize the production of oranges, which helps keep consumer costs down, which in turn results in more people buying (and therefore consuming) orange juice.

[YourTokah]

I cannot espond to your post without totally diregarding the actual subject of this thread. I was simply showing you a flaw in your analogy.