If it's the job of the government to make sure "family structures" are set up in the absolute best interests of the children, I think worrying about what gays are doing should be the LEAST of the government's concerns. Making that the responsibility of the state opens up a huge can of worms, but applying those rules only to gay couples seems unfair.
If it's the job of the government to make sure "family structures" are set up in the absolute best interests of the children, I think worrying about what gays are doing should be the LEAST of the government's concerns. Making that the responsibility of the state opens up a huge can of worms, but applying those rules only to gay couples seems unfair.
Most of the rights granted with marriage fall into three categories
(1) for the benefit of children
(2) necessity for a stay-at-home parent (which used to be the norm in this country)
(3) to put a definition on what is allowed concerning privacy laws
Any rights that fall under (1) & (2) should not be granted to a gay couple, and many rights that fall under (3) are already obtainable through other legal documents.
(1) for the benefit of children
(2) necessity for a stay-at-home parent (which used to be the norm in this country)
(3) to put a definition on what is allowed concerning privacy laws
Any rights that fall under (1) & (2) should not be granted to a gay couple, and many rights that fall under (3) are already obtainable through other legal documents.
Sure, a gay man can produce a child with a lesbian woman.
Other than that, what the hell are you talking about? :roll:
I'm not saying the government makes sure they are set up in the best interests of children. I'm saying why should it actively promote, through the use of tax incentives, a structure which is not ideal? The only structure it promotes is a man and a woman being in a committed relationship, which is what the little evidence we have shows is best.
Because we are all providing couples some tax forgiveness when they marry, so we are essentially paying people to get married. If it does nothing for the community as a whole then why should we pay for it.. go to a church that allows gay marriage and get married privately, nobody is stopping you. Just don't expect legal recognition and the tax benefits that come with it. For the other legal benefits, like I said civil unions or get yourself some joint accounts and write a will.
edit: cubby1223 explained it in his 1,2,3 much clearer than me
Because we are all providing couples some tax forgiveness when they marry, so we are essentially paying people to get married. If it does nothing for the community as a whole then why should we pay for it.. go to a church that allows gay marriage and get married privately, nobody is stopping you. Just don't expect legal recognition and the tax benefits that come with it. For the other legal benefits, like I said civil unions or get yourself some joint accounts and write a will.
edit: cubby1223 explained it in his 1,2,3 much clearer than me
Gays can have children via other means from IVF ( in vitro fertilization ) to adoption or having a just having another person play the role of sperm/egg donor for their spouse.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
This has nothing to do with procreation, it's all about some assholes having the power over others lives. It's been liken this from the dawn of time and these assholes keep getting their shit thrown back in their faces and this will be the same results.
Anti Gay Marriage Douchenozzles are the offspring of George Wallace, Strom Thurman and the other scabs of society who were against Civil Rights.
Anti Gay Marriage Douchenozzles are the offspring of George Wallace, Strom Thurman and the other scabs of society who were against Civil Rights.
There are many straight couples who pay others to help in the process of creating a child when one spouse cannot produce a child and their marriages are still recognized. The entire argument that marriage should be solely based on the ability to have a child is flawed and dishonest as it is only made to raise the bar above and beyond the reach gays to keep them from marrying period. It is on the whole un-American and does not use any logic or reasoning.
A homosexual man is perfectly capable of procreation via medical procedures, just as a lesbian is biologically capable of procreation.
Nobody is saying you can't be in a committed homosexual relationship, you just aren't worth spending the tax benefit on. It is sort of like Washington state giving Boeing tax breaks to keep the jobs here, they do it for the benefit. That doesn't give the local mom & pop in Seattle the right to ask for the same breaks for the sake of equality.. the mom & pop isn't contributing the same thing.
Well first of all, marriage is more than just tax benefits. cubby1223's assertion aside, many of the benefits of marriage are ONLY available through marriage. And the most intangable benefit, treatment of your relationship as committed and valuable, can't be reached no matter what alternatives are used...as giving gay people anything other than marriage says their relationship is worth less than that of the straight couple next door. And don't tell me that's not an important part of marriage...that's how it STARTED, tax breaks and all that came much later.
But secondly, so far I haven't seen any of you make an argument that gay marriage DOESN'T benefit society in some way...or for that matter, that procreation is the ONLY value married straight couples have.
The burden of proof is never on the person who would have to prove a negative. I understand the other values you put on marriage but those can be achieved without government recognition--like I said, through a church which grants such marriages.
I haven't seen you make an argument of why a love-based legal recognition of marriage could exclude polygamists, let alone criminalize them.
To modify your quote to make my point:
edit: an also, their relationship is worth less than a straight couple. That is because a straight couple is much more likely to procreate and is the ideal situation for raising the next generation. A gay couple does not benefit society but only the two gay people, so there is no reason to reward them for that.
Elderly couples, straight couples where one partner is sterile, etc... all disprove your argument. Your point is null and void because our government has allowed those who cannot or do not want to have children to be married. The only major difference between those mentioned above and gays is that gays are a same sex couple.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
I don't know if you are being sarcastic but all I can say is people should worry about themselves, they are in no position morally to tell others how to live their lives, especially the scoundrels who are up in arms over two people who love each other getting married. These Fundies are the main reason people are rejecting their religion, not because the word of Christ is bad but because the are obnoxious hypocrites.
But each homosexual can procreate, just not solely with each other.
Furthermore, how about elderly couples, sterile couples, etc?
Also, should marriages be invalidated once children reach the age of 18 and are independents and the once husband and wife are now elderly?
It is not void. At what age are people infertile? What age limit do we set? What about grandparents taking over for their dead children's grandchildren, is there not the same community interest in marriage there? As for infertile couples, do we start testing couples? Do we force couples to procreate? Is there a time limit?
All of these enforcement questions for what may be another 15% of procreation. It is much more simple to say all straight couples get incentives to marry, and have a procreation rate of, I dunno 85% or something, because that last 15% is not cost effective to squeeze out through enforcement.
Gays have a 0% procreation rate. There for there is no community interest in giving incentives for same-sex couples to marry
Originally posted by: cubby1223
Originally posted by: Harvey
Assuming for the sake of argument that the state CAN restrict gays from marrying, what rational, compelling, overriding reason is there for doing so? Gays aren't demanding that others should be forced to participate in their personal activities or relationships. They want only to be allowed the same freedom to conduct their own private, personal relationships as they choose.
The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America says:
How does instituting discriminatory, bigoted, homophobic prohibitions in our laws serve to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare or otherwise secure the blessings of liberty" for ALL of our citizens?
You talk big to draw big attention. Get off your high horse and come back down to reality. :roll:
OK. Here's a dose of reality. You're a self-centered, self-serving, fear mongering, homophobic BIGOT. I wouldn't be suprised if it's because you're a closet gay, and you talk big because you're scared shitless others will figure it out.
The California Supreme Court ruled that, prior to Prop. 8, your narrow, bigoted definition did not apply.
You would deny them the right to marry the partner of their choice. Since the same bigoted pricks who sponsered this bill now want to nullify gay marriages performed before Prop 8 was passed, maybe we could arbitrarily declare your parents' marriage null and void. That sounds like a great idea to me. :roll:
I acknowledge the other side of the argument. I just dismiss the value because the only motivation behind homophobic BIGOTS like you is to be the meanest, most despicable asshole possible to others for no justifiable reason and with no possible benefit to yourself or anyone else. :thumbsdown: :|
But we already knew that about you. :roll:
We do not disqualify people who were born sterile from getting married if they are straight and neither should we do the same to gays. Gays can raise children and run a family unit. Please don't go down this flawed route of reasoning that somehow gays do not have a support structure to raise kids. This is flawed as gay people do not just pop out of thin air.
You are arguing a technicality but it is not making your case anymore valid. Gays may not be able to have children in the same manner as straight couples but they can via other means create children and raise them. In extreme cases adoption is also just as valid as the procreation method between a straight couple.
You're right about proving a negative in the rhetorical sense, but we're also dealing with laws and rights. In this case you are talking about only giving the right to marry to some people, and I think the principles of this country require more than simply arguing why some people SHOULD get the right...you have to prove that other people should not.
What makes you think I oppose polygamy as long as it involves consenting adults?
There are "community interests" beyond encouraging procreation. For example, it's in the best interest of society for its members to be in long term, stable relationships, as has been shown through many, MANY studies. It promotes happiness and increased life expectancy, among other things. It also discourages the spread of STDs. So far as I know, none of them say those benefits apply only to straight couples, so it would seem to be in society's best interest to promote gay marriages as well.
And yes, it's true that those benefits could be encouraged outside of the marriage...but that applies equally to straight couples. Your assertion so far has been that marriage must benefit society to be valid. I don't know about that, but in any case, gay marriage DOES have an overall positive effect on society as a whole. There are benefits beyond procreation.
Assuming you support polygamy regarding consenting adults. So we have a love-based marriage system. Consenting adults can marry other adults, regardless of sex and the number involved. So me, Steve, Joe, Mary, Lucy, and John can get married? We have a marriage? Does this make sense to you? Under a love-based system I don't see how you can refute this as being not allowed, and I think most people would find it absurd and against the true intention of marriage.
Fundamentally what this comes down to is you see marriage as acknowledged by the government as a right. However it must be mentioned that nobody is banning marriage. Get married if you want. Just don't expect the government to sign off on it and give you the tax benefits that come with it.
As for drift3r..
We have two options here for what to consider recognized by law.
Marriage as between a man and a woman legally, only giving straight couples tax incentives. We are then encouraging an institution which provides, say, an 85% procreation rate.
Marriage as between a man and a man or a woman and a woman legally, all get the incentives. Procreation rate is extremely low within the couple. Evidence shows this is not the ideal situation for children. While certainly gay couples can be great parents, there is no evidence to show this is something we should be paying through tax incentives to promote.
Now you're saying we should allow the second group to be recognized because the first group's procreation rate is not 100%. I explained it isn't 100% because that last bit is tough to squeeze out, but the rate is still great overall. Solution has nothing to do with enforcement or getting into people's private business, just has to do with defining marriage for tax purposes as being between a man and a woman.
Fundamentally what this comes down to is you see marriage as acknowledged by the government as a right. However it must be mentioned that nobody is banning marriage. Get married if you want. Just don't expect the government to sign off on it and give you the tax benefits that come with it.
As for drift3r..
We have two options here for what to consider recognized by law.
Marriage as between a man and a woman legally, only giving straight couples tax incentives. We are then encouraging an institution which provides, say, an 85% procreation rate.
Marriage as between a man and a man or a woman and a woman legally, all get the incentives. Procreation rate is extremely low within the couple. Evidence shows this is not the ideal situation for children. While certainly gay couples can be great parents, there is no evidence to show this is something we should be paying through tax incentives to promote.
Now you're saying we should allow the second group to be recognized because the first group's procreation rate is not 100%. I explained it isn't 100% because that last bit is tough to squeeze out, but the rate is still great overall. Solution has nothing to do with enforcement or getting into people's private business, just has to do with defining marriage for tax purposes as being between a man and a woman.
There we go Rainsford! getting somewhere.. I see your point on that. I'm going to sit on this for a bit since I'm still not decided myself on this issue
edit: not trying to sound condescending.. just happy this wasn't a waste discussion your point being how gay marriage benefits society
edit: not trying to sound condescending.. just happy this wasn't a waste discussion
your point being how gay marriage benefits societyAfter thinking about it a little bit, I think this "secular case against gay marriage" suggests a solution that should satisfy both parties. Since the benefits to society from marriage are derived from procreation, let's make it official and ONLY give tax breaks for couples with children. Marriage gives you absolutely NO benefits that cost society anything, just legal rights and cultural recognition. With that out of the way, let's open it up to gay couples as well. We're still encouraging procreation, and no longer encouraging gay marriage in a way that costs anyone anything. What do you think?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter