Why would anyone be against gay marriage?

[Mike Gayner]

Originally posted by: MrsBugi
I read through this whole thread and there are no logical, religion-free, personal bias-free arguments provided by anybody against gay marriage.

Logic/facts:

Gay couples who want to get married are denied 1400 rights/benefits/protections
Your run-of-the-mill-marriage-license-carrying heterosexual couple has access to over 1400 rights, benefits, and protections (300+ per state and 1138 federal). Gay couples who want to get married are SOL as these are exclusive to married couples. Some of those rights include: shared Social Security benefits, immigration sponsorship rights, joint taxation, hospital visitation, bereavement leave/health insurance benefits from employers, etc.

Civil unions aren't enough and don't give the same rights as marriage does
Approximately 75% of the rights granted through civil marriage come from federal marriage laws. No state can possibly come close to giving same-sex couples equitable rights until the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is repealed and gay marriage is legalized.

Gay couples are denied rights that your average incarcerated heterosexual serial killer has access to
The U.S. Supreme Court determined that the right to marry the person of ones choice was a fundamental civil right, and therefore the government is generally not permitted to set up roadblocks or second-guess whether marriage is a good idea for any particular couple. There is no limit to the number of marriages one may enter into in one?s lifetime. There are no rules requiring people to marry for a specific reason (such as love or procreation), nor are there any rules against people marrying solely to upset one's parents or for money, publicity, or fame. So even Scott Peterson, who murdered his wife and unborn child, can have another shot at marriage from San Quentin?s Death Row. And gay couples can't.

It just doesn't make sense. Such a shame that religion is still tied so closely with government, apparently freedom of religion does not equal freedom from religion.

Best post in the thread TBH.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: tynopik
no one's answered why it's so important that gays receive this subsidy

The Fourteenth Amendment is a real bitch sometimes.

 

[tynopik]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
What behaviour? Reproduction? If so then why not make procreation a requirement?

how would that work? after 5 years? what if they wait 6 years?

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Of course, that would mean automatic divorce as you reach the age where you cannot procreate anymore or if you are sterilised.

as i've already said, who knows at what age you can't procreate?

and even vasectomies aren't 100% effective

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Of course, there would have to be medical examinations involved before you can get a marriage license to ensure that you can reproduce

i've already covered this, too much cost and privacy issues and uncertainties

the easiest thing was to simply make the cutoff at a man + a woman

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffieldprobably a contract needs to be signed that you are getting married because you intend to reproduce

that's actually not necessary

part of the purpose of marriage is to encourage behavior that might lead to the desired result even if you don't plan on it

having someone sharing your bed who is available can lead to certain activities, and even if you take precautions, accidents happen and, whoops, here comes baby

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
You don't need marriage to reproduce and not all married coples reproduce so in the end, that is a moot point.

reproduction is an important part of the reason for encouraging marriage, but it is only one part

the other part is to encourage a stable home for raising kids

 

[tynopik]

Originally posted by: rbV5
My point is, you should be able to obtain a passport despite being born in a barn...its not your fault, you had absolutely nothing to do with the lack of birth certificate. Its just wrong.

my point is that not having a passport actually limits your freedom

not having a marriage license just means you don't get as much money from the state

 

[Regs]

Tradition.

 

[tynopik]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Weren't you arguing about the difficulty to change all state laws and now you are arguing for changing policies of thousands of hospitals along with extra work to get around rules that married couples already have?

marriage is a state institution for its own purposes

that a private institution wants to use it for stupid reasons doesn't mean it is the state that should change

just like social security numbers are used by the SSA but then every private institution started using them too

it's not the SSA that needs to change, it's all the other groups basing your entire identity off your SSN

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Just be FUCKING honest for once in your life and give the real reason why you think that homosexual couples should not be married

my taxes are high enough and i see no reason why i should pay more to a group that has the least need for it

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
If you think marriage is a "money grab" then you shouldn't be against homosexual marriage, you should be against marriage as a whole.

no, because there is a legitimate benefit to subsidizing heterosexual marriage

i want lots of little worker bees supporting my social security when i retire

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: tynopik

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
What behaviour? Reproduction? If so then why not make procreation a requirement?

how would that work? after 5 years? what if they wait 6 years?

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Of course, that would mean automatic divorce as you reach the age where you cannot procreate anymore or if you are sterilised.

as i've already said, who knows at what age you can't procreate?

and even vasectomies aren't 100% effective

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Of course, there would have to be medical examinations involved before you can get a marriage license to ensure that you can reproduce

i've already covered this, too much cost and privacy issues and uncertainties

the easiest thing was to simply make the cutoff at a man + a woman

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffieldprobably a contract needs to be signed that you are getting married because you intend to reproduce

that's actually not necessary

part of the purpose of marriage is to encourage behavior that might lead to the desired result even if you don't plan on it

having someone sharing your bed who is available can lead to certain activities, and even if you take precautions, accidents happen and, whoops, here comes baby

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
You don't need marriage to reproduce and not all married coples reproduce so in the end, that is a moot point.

reproduction is an important part of the reason for encouraging marriage, but it is only one part

the other part is to encourage a stable home for raising kids

*sigh*

Ok, so this guy has NO BALLS, none what so ever, has already been tested and produces no sperm, never have, never will. He is in love with this woman and they want to get married... NOW WHAT?

I'm a divorced father of two, had both of them before i got married while having none in wedlock so i can honestly tell you from experience that marriage doesn't mean shit when it comes to procreation.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Regs
Tradition.

Stoning is a tradition too, so is slavery (in the Bible AND in the US).

Traditions change as humanity moves on and understands better.

 

[tynopik]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: tynopik
no one's answered why it's so important that gays receive this subsidy

The Fourteenth Amendment is a real bitch sometimes.

please quote the part of the 14th amendment you think is relevant

 

[tynopik]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
*sigh*

Ok, so this guy has NO BALLS, none what so ever, has already been tested and produces no sperm, never have, never will. He is in love with this woman and they want to get married... NOW WHAT?

the state has decided that the cost of handling these exceptions isn't worth the effort

whether you agree with that or not, that's their prerogative

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I'm a divorced father of two, had both of them before i got married while having none in wedlock so i can honestly tell you from experience that marriage doesn't mean shit when it comes to procreation

1. congrats your protection always worked. that's not true for all people

married people have more sex, it's a proven fact

2. procreation is only part of the reason for marriage

 

[tynopik]

[double post]

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: tynopik

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: tynopik
no one's answered why it's so important that gays receive this subsidy

The Fourteenth Amendment is a real bitch sometimes.

please quote the part of the 14th amendment you think is relevant

Section 1:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: tynopik

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Weren't you arguing about the difficulty to change all state laws and now you are arguing for changing policies of thousands of hospitals along with extra work to get around rules that married couples already have?

marriage is a state institution for its own purposes

that a private institution wants to use it for stupid reasons doesn't mean it is the state that should change

just like social security numbers are used by the SSA but then every private institution started using them too

it's not the SSA that needs to change, it's all the other groups basing your entire identity off your SSN

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Just be FUCKING honest for once in your life and give the real reason why you think that homosexual couples should not be married

my taxes are high enough and i see no reason why i should pay more to a group that has the least need for it

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
If you think marriage is a "money grab" then you shouldn't be against homosexual marriage, you should be against marriage as a whole.

no, because there is a legitimate benefit to subsidizing heterosexual marriage

i want lots of little worker bees supporting my social security when i retire

Marriage is a religious tradition as it is today, nothing more and nothing less.

I like the part about your taxes, are you so fucking stupid that you actually think that homosexual marriage would make even a thousandth of a drop in the bucket that is your current debt? It wouldn't.

OTOH, why should homosexuals pay taxes for something they have no access to? Now THAT might actually make a difference in taxes.

Again, ok, if marriage and the benefits are for reproduction then sure, no benefits what so ever until you reproduce.

Of course, it would be smarter to give the benefits based on reproduction and NOT marriage.

But logic and such are not things you ever touch, i have concluded that from your drivel.

 

[tynopik]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Section 1:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

let me see, nope, nothing in there that everyone is guaranteed the same subsidies from the government

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: tynopik

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Section 1:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

let me see, nope, nothing in there that everyone is guaranteed the same subsidies from the government

Equal protection of laws.

I'll translate it to whatever language you speak if you wish because you seem to have a hard time comprehending English.

[Edit] Fixed the quote mess [/Edit]

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: tynopik

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Section 1:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

let me see, nope, nothing in there that everyone is guaranteed the same subsidies from the government

Except for the part that explicitly says that

"No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Considering that marriage is a tax and legal boon to straight people, then gay people cannot be denied those same rights.

 

[tynopik]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Marriage is a religious tradition as it is today, nothing more and nothing less.

all the subsidies from the state say otherwise

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I like the part about your taxes, are you so fucking stupid that you actually think that homosexual marriage would make even a thousandth of a drop in the bucket that is your current debt? It wouldn't.

1. yes it would

2. why do they deserve any subsidy at all?

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
OTOH, why should homosexuals pay taxes for something they have no access to? Now THAT might actually make a difference in taxes.

because homosexuals need a new crop of kids to pay for their social security too?

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Again, ok, if marriage and the benefits are for reproduction then sure, no benefits what so ever until you reproduce.

because if there was no benefit to being married until you had a kid, people might not get married in the first place

it's about putting people in a place that makes reproduction more likely

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Of course, it would be smarter to give the benefits based on reproduction and NOT marriage.

well actually there already is

you can think of it as a staged system

marriage provides one level of benefit to encourage certain behavior

then when you are 'successful' another level of benefits kick in

as you may have noticed, there are all sorts of tax advantages to having kids

 

[tynopik]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Equal protection of laws.

I'll translate it to whatever language you speak if you wish because you seem to have a hard time comprehending English.

gays have equal protection under the law

but that doesn't mean everyone receives the same benefits under the law

i can't get food stamps because i make too much money

is that unequal under the law?

 

[tynopik]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Considering that marriage is a tax and legal boon to straight people, then gay people cannot be denied those same rights.

rich people are denied food stamps

are food stamps their right too?

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: tynopik

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Equal protection of laws.

I'll translate it to whatever language you speak if you wish because you seem to have a hard time comprehending English.

gays have equal protection under the law

but that doesn't mean everyone receives the same benefits under the law

i can't get food stamps because i make too much money

is that unequal under the law?

And you can't have sex with a 10yr old cus you're too old. DAMN THE MAN!!!!

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: tynopik

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Equal protection of laws.

I'll translate it to whatever language you speak if you wish because you seem to have a hard time comprehending English.

gays have equal protection under the law

but that doesn't mean everyone receives the same benefits under the law

i can't get food stamps because i make too much money

is that unequal under the law?

marital confidences privilege
spousal testimonial privilege
tax relief and tax help
inability to secure health benefits for partner
inability to see partner in life-threatening circumstances
inability to act on partner's behalf in dire medical situations

A short list, but all are denied to a group of people because they're gay and for no other reason.

 

[tynopik]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
marital confidences privilege
spousal testimonial privilege

ooh, we finally got 2 issues!

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
tax relief and tax help
inability to secure health benefits for partner

we're back to the money grab

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
inability to see partner in life-threatening circumstances

that has nothing to do with the government

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
inability to act on partner's behalf in dire medical situations

1. again has nothing to do with the government
2. it's called a living will/power of attorney/health care proxy

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: tynopik

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Equal protection of laws.

I'll translate it to whatever language you speak if you wish because you seem to have a hard time comprehending English.

gays have equal protection under the law

but that doesn't mean everyone receives the same benefits under the law

i can't get food stamps because i make too much money

is that unequal under the law?

Read the text again, OF laws, not UNDER law.

It's not the same thing.

If you fulfill the reqirement to get food stamps you will, regardless of your gender, race, sexual orientation or if you have three eyes.

I think you are playing obtuse because there is no way in hell that someone can't get the point here.

 

[tynopik]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Read the text again, OF laws, not UNDER law.

It's not the same thing.

If you fulfill the reqirement to get food stamps you will, regardless of your gender, race, sexual orientation or if you have three eyes.

I think you are playing obtuse because there is no way in hell that someone can't get the point here.

if you fulfill the requirements of marriage (1 man + 1 woman) you get the benefits, even if you are gay

in fact, many gays are married to women . . .

there's nothing banning gays from getting married to a woman, it's the same rules for everyone, so what's your problem again?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: tynopik
because if there was no benefit to being married until you had a kid, people might not get married in the first place

You're worried about tax dollars and you think that would be a BAD thing?

Why? Why not demand that the female is pregnant before you can get a marriage license? It would make perfect sense if you argue that tax dollars need to be saved and that marriage is solely for procreation.