[turtle777]

Originally Posted by adamfishercox 

Seriously. You wonder why you got an infraction? Have you contributed anything here except "jokes"?

What else is there to contribute ?

We're in the Lounge, for Pete's sakes...

-t

[0157988944]

Hahaha

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

No. determining age isn't any harder or more invasive than determining sex.

1. At what precise age are we unable to reproduce?
2. As I've explained, most other forms of affirmative action do not require this type of means testing as long as the applicants fall under the general requirements which require no further examination besides whether they fall under the general criteria where the majority will benefit. I understand that in order to try to win an argument you'd like for that not to be the case and for people who via simple visual examination can be immediately determined not to be eligible to be put in the same class as those who require further examination, testing and questioning to eliminate them from the class in question. As I've shown, such a thing is unusual and not required.

They have to provide both if they want a marriage license. We choose not to discriminate against couples that can't have children even though we can easily identify them — except in the case of gays.

You can't easily identify them. I guess if you were talking about a 90 year old couple, you could probably do so but reproduction occurs often even in people whom it is thought can't do so previously...BUT AGAIN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE EXTREME EXCEPTION requiring another level of means testing. It's not an exception for same sex couples to not be able to reproduce. IT'S THE RULE. It's something that can be eliminated without having any further testing.

Why make gays an exception here? Let's include gays in the list of nonreproductive couples who are still in the program and have done with it. There! Problem solved!

Most all opposite couples seeking to get married can and do reproduce.
Every same sex couple who join in a long term union NEVER reproduce.

It's a science based fact. It's a very clear 'line in the sand" where you don' t have to guess, test or discriminate on age. It's the "rule", not the exception. That is what makes it significantly different from your examples. Besides, even if someone were found to be infertile, the couple would be able to provide the same father/mother relationship that naturally occurs to a child without parents. Gay couples can't do that either. While they are able to provide loving care to a child, they at best can only provide a home with only mothers or fathers and that does nothing to promote or even come close to the thing that this affirmative action seeks to encourage. I'm sorry, but you're trying to offer exceptions to the rule which will do NOTHING to further the goals of the affirmative action in question.

Objecting on the basis that they can't have children isn't valid, since we've already agreed that it's OK to make your criteria fuzzy enough to accept couples who obviously won't reproduce.

No different than allowing some wealthy minorities to participate in affirmative action programs, without allowing wealthy white people to do so. Your argument is no different than suggesting that if wealthy black people (who likely do not need affirmative action) can partipate, then there's no reason not to allow wealthy white people. You're wanting to say that because there are some exceptions, that even those which are not just exceptions but rather go directly against the rule should be included. Good luck with that sort of reasoning!

[selowitch]

Only in the mind of a right-winger do the rights granted a person hinge on his or her ability (or theoretical or previous) ability to reproduce. If, God forbid, the Constitution were amended to say just that, I would emigrate from this country that very day. I hear Tel-Aviv is nice this time of year.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by selowitch 

Only in the mind of a right-winger do the rights granted a person hinge on his or her ability (or theoretical or previous) ability to reproduce.

Only in the mind of a left-winger do benefits, given to people who decide to engage in behavior which normally always results in reproduction, that are granted so that the results of that reproduction meet a societal need, NOT hinge on their ability to to decide to engage in behavior which normally always results in reproduction. You're seeing the trees...the forest is apparently all that alludes you.

[Dakarʒ]

So how does giving marriage benefits to homosexuals hurt society?

[selowitch]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Only in the mind of a left-winger do benefits, given to people who decide to engage in behavior which normally always results in reproduction, that are granted so that the results of that reproduction meet a societal need, NOT hinge on their ability to to decide to engage in behavior which normally always results in reproduction. You're seeing the trees...the forest is apparently all that alludes you.

I think you mean "elude" --- evade, avoid, flee from.

I'm sorry, I really don't see your logic here. You're saying that according to a leftist, benefits are given to people whose behavior normally results in reproduction (absent exceptions for the infertile, etc.) the results of which meet a societal need, and the provision of these benefits hinges on their ability to decide to engage in said reproductive behavior. I'm pretty sure I said the exact opposite.

I've said it many times: the anti-gay-marriage folks want the government to subsidize and to enforce their bigotries, prejudices, and insecurities. Why would anyone vote in support of that?

It's very disturbing to me that true conservatism (which I still disagree with but which is more philosophically sound than neo-conservatism) has been hijacked by Jesus freaks, bigots, and gun-toting yee-haw artists. Whatever happened to the notion of government getting out of our lives and staying out of our bedrooms? That we're even discussing government intervention into something so personal speaks volumes about how out-of-step with mainstream America and the Constitution these brownshirts are. Begone! Your approach is unwelcome, and will be soundly rejected at the polls.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

1. At what precise age are we unable to reproduce?

It is excruciatingly unlikely for somebody over 60 to be able to reproduce naturally. Since we're talking about general tendencies in the first place (it's more likely that somebody under 60 won't be able to reproduce naturally than that somebody over 60 will), I would think that's good enough.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

2. As I've explained, most other forms of affirmative action do not require this type of means testing as long as the applicants fall under the general requirements which require no further examination besides whether they fall under the general criteria where the majority will benefit. I understand that in order to try to win an argument you'd like for that not to be the case and for people who via simple visual examination can be immediately determined not to be eligible to be put in the same class as those who require further examination, testing and questioning to eliminate them from the class in question. As I've shown, such a thing is unusual and not required.

Why is it "means testing" when we're talking about old people but not when we're talking about gays?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Most all opposite couples seeking to get married can and do reproduce.
Every same sex couple who join in a long term union NEVER reproduce.

And even if we expanded the class of people allowed to marry from "heterosexuals" to "adults," most all adult couples seeking to get married could and would reproduce. Again, there is no better argument against including gays in the class than against old people.

[selowitch]

The difference between a man marrying a woman and a man marrying a man is so small that it seems to me the state is far better off leaving it alone. Why do so few see how this is blatant gender discrimination? You intend to change my rights and entitlements and protections under the law based on which set of genitals my partner has and whether his or her chest is bumpy or flat. That's actually how the law determines these things --- it's not like they check your chromosomes.

And another thing: Not only does gay marriage not threaten my own marriage (I happen to be married to a woman, and I'm a man), but the recognition of these unions and the ability of children to be official members of those families quite to the contrary enhances and strengthens my marriage. That is why the whole Defense of Marriage rhetoric is so weak, absurd, and irrelevant.

Oh, BTW -- if I marry a woman who used to be a guy (i.e., a transgendered person), does that count as a legit marriage to you dunderheaded red-staters? Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by selowitch 

The difference between a man marrying a woman and a man marrying a man is so small that it seems to me the state is far better off leaving it alone. Why do so few see how this is blatant gender discrimination? You intend to change my rights and entitlements and protections under the law based on which set of genitals my partner has and whether his or her chest is bumpy or flat. That's actually how the law determines these things --- it's not like they check your chromosomes.

And another thing: Not only does gay marriage not threaten my own marriage (I happen to be married to a woman, and I'm a man), but the recognition of these unions and the ability of children to be official members of those families quite to the contrary enhances and strengthens my marriage. That why the whole Defense of Marriage rhetoric is so weak, absurd, and irrelevant.

Oh, BTW -- if I marry a woman who used to be a guy (i.e., a transgendered person), does that count as a legit marriage to you dunderheaded red-staters? Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Speaking of trees and forests, sometimes I wonder if a tree hasn't fallen on some of these people and left them a little woozy.

[selowitch]

Or how about this one? A woman and a man marries. The man decides after the marriage to undergo a sex change operation. Does the couple get retroactively divorced? If the answer is "yes," now you have to investigate every married couple in the country to make sure they are still the same sex as when they were born. If "no", then how do you know that's not what happened with a "gay" marriage you plan to prohibit?

Bonus Question: Do their kids retroactively become illegitimate? If "yes", then you really have no "family values" at all.

[Chongo]

Two quick points:
1st, there are things called a will and medical power of attorney. Get those and there will be no issues getting to see your loved one in the hospital, or inheritance if they should die. 2nd, there are people that have said once the courts rule gays can marry that they will argue laws against plural marriage are unconstitutional. I have no problem with either as long as they are consenting adults and agree.
God gave us free will to choose, just be ready to accept the consequences of those choices. Remember the old saying "be careful what you ask for, you just may get it", or as Mr. Spock once said; After a time, you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing, after all, as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true.

Now on to why some care more about gay marriage that "global climate change"

Humans have minimal impact on "global climate change" as it is being called now and has little affect on them, where as gay marriage is something that is here and now and some see it as affecting them greatly. When Krakatoa exploded it put some much debris in the atmosphere it lowered the mean temperature for a year and affected the weather even longer.

Krakatoa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Global climate

In the year following the eruption, average global temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 degrees Celsius. Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years, and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888. The eruption injected an unusually large amount of sulfur dioxide (SO2) gas high into the stratosphere which was subsequently transported by high-level winds all over the planet. This led to a global increase in sulfuric acid (H2SO4) concentration in high-level cirrus cloud. The resulting increase in cloud reflectivity (or albedo) would reflect more incoming light from the sun than usual, and cool the entire planet until the suspended sulfur fell to the ground as acid precipitation. (Hmm acid rain, before any coal fired power plant existed)

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by selowitch 

I'm sorry, I really don't see your logic here. You're saying that according to a leftist, benefits are given to people whose behavior normally results in reproduction (absent exceptions for the infertile, etc.) the results of which meet a societal need, and the provision of these benefits hinges on their ability to decide to engage in said reproductive behavior. I'm pretty sure I said the exact opposite.

Yeah...that's where that big "NOT" in my statement comes in. It's the word that starts with an "N" and ends in a "T" with an "O" in the middle.

I've said it many times: the anti-gay-marriage folks want the government to subsidize and to enforce their bigotries, prejudices, and insecurities. Why would anyone vote in support of that?

...or any of your other false dilemmas? I agree. I wouldn't either.

It's very disturbing to me that true conservatism (which I still disagree with but which is more philosophically sound than neo-conservatism) has been hijacked by Jesus freaks, bigots, and gun-toting yee-haw artists. Whatever happened to the notion of government getting out of our lives and staying out of our bedrooms?

How does the government recognition of marriage keep you from doing anything in your bedroom? Talk about faulty logic!

That we're even discussing government intervention into something so personal speaks volumes about how out-of-step with mainstream America and the Constitution these brownshirts are. Begone! Your approach is unwelcome, and will be soundly rejected at the polls.

CRAZZEEE talk. The government doesn't intervene in ANYTHING. The government simply recognizes and provides certain benefits in recognition since there is a compelling state interest. I'm explaining scientific facts and showing a compelling interest. You're replying with one big ad hominem argument mixed with a heaping helping of emotional irrationality. Sorry...sell your political crybaby act to someone else. Get back to me when you can actually debate or refute the points in question.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It is excruciatingly unlikely....

BZZZT. You've already failed the test. We're already heading into the guesssing unchartered waters...something 100% unnecessary with the current standard.

And even if we expanded the class of people allowed to marry from "heterosexuals" to "adults...

Sorry. Already the definition. Marriage is 100% legal for all adults in the US unless you're already married, or wish to marry a relative. Strike 2.

....most all adult couples seeking to get married could and would reproduce. Again, there is no better argument against including gays in the class than against old people.

See above. You're looking for exceptions instead of simply excluding the rule that will never apply. This is never required or needed in any other forms of affirmative action, and in fact as I've shown in racial affirmative action, your form of logic fails in that instance as well.

[stupendousman]

[QUOTE=selowitch;3480169]The difference between a man marrying a woman and a man marrying a man is so small that it seems to me the state is far better off leaving it alone. [quote]

More crazy talk. The difference is extraordinary. In one the norm result is the creation of new human life. In the other...uh...nothing extraordinary. That's a huge difference unless you simply are to dim to understand, or too dishonest to admit it.

Why do so few see how this is blatant gender discrimination?

Asked, answered above.

You intend to change my rights and entitlements and protections under the law based on which set of genitals my partner has and whether his or her chest is bumpy or flat.

Actually, the genitals, yes. Not so much the latter as I've seen flat hairy chested girls (shudder). The genitals are a qualifier for the thing that the affirmative action and state interest seeks to address, much as they are a qualifier to determine if a urinal is installed in a bathroom. By your logic, not installing urinals in ladies rooms is also an example of blatant gender discrimination. By your logic any laws which give preference to a mother in child custody matters is blatant gender discrimination. The fact of the matter is, that despite being "equal', men and women are different. Significantly different as are the possible ways they can join together. Not all ways have equal interests to the state. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings or makes you mad. Don't blame me...I wasn't the one that decided not to give men uteruses as well. That was the "creator" that the Constitution mentions. Maybe you can sue?

Oh, BTW -- if I marry a woman who used to be a guy (i.e., a transgendered person), does that count as a legit marriage to you dunderheaded red-staters? Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

It does the same as if you choose to marry your car, just because you put female hormones into the tank and strap a wig and fake breasts to it, I suppose.

(btw...I live in a Blue state and for the most part, my friends think I'm a little on the left side. On a small handful of issues on not, and i'm usually pretty vocal about those but only when a debate comes up).

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

CRAZZEEE talk. The government doesn't intervene in ANYTHING. The government simply recognizes and provides certain benefits in recognition since there is a compelling state interest. I'm explaining scientific facts and showing a compelling interest. You're replying with one big ad hominem argument mixed with a heaping helping of emotional irrationality. Sorry...sell your political crybaby act to someone else. Get back to me when you can actually debate or refute the points in question.

CRAZZEEE talk. Whether humans procreate has nothing to do with compelling state interests. Humans procreate to keep the human race going, which has absolutely nothing to do with governments. Strawman. A certain percentage of the human race also will not procreate, whether it be for personal reasons, or for homosexual reasons, or for medical reasons, and that percentage has never made, and never will make, any difference in the growth of the human race. You're not showing any scientific facts; you're spouting a bunch your personal opinions, trying to disguise your homophobia.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

CRAZZEEE talk. Whether humans procreate has nothing to do with compelling state interests. Humans procreate to keep the human race going, which has absolutely nothing to do with governments.

What happens when humans procreate absolutely does create a state interest. Otherwise, the Government wouldn't have a multitude of laws regarding child welfare, many agencies that assist in that endeavor, or wouldn't likely have any part in a societal construct that has been used for centuries to try and keep the man/women/child unit together (marriage). I'm sorry, but until you can come up with an argument that supports the notion that the government has no interest and TAKES no interest in what happens after humans procreate, you might as well stop before you start.

A certain percentage of the human race also will not procreate, whether it be for personal reasons, or for homosexual reasons, or for medical reasons, and that percentage has never made, and never will make, any difference in the growth of the human race.

But the only segment of the population who can be assured of NEVER being involved in a long term union which causes the normal state interest of child welfare to come into play is the segment where the same sexes unite. They've eliminated themselves from the need for the state interest that marriage presents (there no compelling state interest to endorse emotions - love in this case).

You're not showing any scientific facts; you're spouting a bunch your personal opinions, trying to disguise your homophobia.

A. Thanks for the personal attack. It goes to show the desperation of your argument.

B. I've explained the following facts;

1. Men and women who come together in long term unions normally end up procreating. Do the math.

2. Same sexes who come together in long term unions NEVER can procreate. Do the math.

3. The ability to bring new life into the world creates an inequality in what the relationships bring to the rest of society. One creates new members, the other doesn't - a clear and irrefutable disparity.

The miracle of life > the inability to create life

4. There is a state interest in child welfare.

5. It is in the best interest of children for them to be raised in a loving home by their biological mother and father.

6. The facts above create an overwhelming incentive for the government to act to encourage long term unions between men and women (which normally result in procreation) via affirmative actions as the do currently with marriage recogntion.

Now...which facts do you dispute?

[selowitch]

Originally Posted by selowitch

Oh, BTW -- if I marry a woman who used to be a guy (i.e., a transgendered person), does that count as a legit marriage to you dunderheaded red-staters?

Originally Posted by stupendousman

It does the same as if you choose to marry your car, just because you put female hormones into the tank and strap a wig and fake breasts to it, I suppose.

Oh, so now a transgendered person loses his/her humanity altogether? I guess your answer in a sense is "no" --- so in your dystopian world, we're going to have "genital checks" at City Hall whenever someone gets a marriage license. "Sir, Ma'am, you'll need to drop your shorts to confirm that your are in fact of the correct gender before we let you get married."

I think your statement that children should be raised with a loving father and a loving mother is highly offensive because it assumes that other family configurations are inadequately loving or illegitimate. Who the heck asked you? Why do wish to empower the government to pass judgment on these things?

Stupendous apparently thinks that by repeating the same arguments over and over again, they somehow gain in strength even when they are just as illogical and morally derelict as when he first began spouting this right-wing, holier-than-thou gibberish.

[selowitch]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

1. Men and women who come together in long term unions normally end up procreating. Do the math.

What do you mean by "normally"? Whose norms are we talking about? Oh, right ... you're a right-winger. You probably also believe in compulsory childbirth (often disingenuously labeled being "pro-life").

Originally Posted by stupendousman

2. Same sexes who come together in long term unions NEVER can procreate. Do the math.

So what? They can adopt. Your observation may be true, but it definitely doesn't support your argument, so why even mention it?

Originally Posted by stupendousman

3. The ability to bring new life into the world creates an inequality in what the relationships bring to the rest of society. One creates new members, the other doesn't - a clear and irrefutable disparity.

Again, so what? And how does this support your opinion re gay marriage? Answer: It doesn't.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

The miracle of life > the inability to create life

Yawn. Irrelevant as usual.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

4. There is a state interest in child welfare.

True, but irrelevant.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

5. It is in the best interest of children for them to be raised in a loving home by their biological mother and father.

Ridiculous, false, and also directly refuted by scientific research.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

6. The facts above create an overwhelming incentive for the government to act to encourage long term unions between men and women (which normally result in procreation) via affirmative actions as the do currently with marriage recogntion.

Overwhelming how? Even if I accepted your premises, your logic is hopelessly flawed. But you keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again as if that somehow improves it.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by selowitch 

Oh, so now a transgendered person loses his/her humanity altogether? I guess your answer in a sense is "no"

Not "in a sense". Simply "no". Thanks for correcting (sort of) your strawman before I even get a chance. If only you'd do that more!

--- so in your dystopian world, we're going to have "genital checks" at City Hall whenever someone gets a marriage license. "Sir, Ma'am, you'll need to drop your shorts to confirm that your are in fact of the correct gender before we let you get married."

Uh...no. If the state legally states XYZ, then XYZ it is regardless if it's really PDQ and no matter if you put a XYZ t-shirt on it...it still isn't going to be XYZ. This gets back to my "anything can happen' response and is really fodder for another thread.

I think your statement that children should be raised with a loving father and a loving mother is highly offensive because it assumes that other family configurations are inadequately loving or illegitimate.

A. I don't really care if the facts offend you.
B. It assumes nothing other than what i stated. I conceded that other methods are possible. But just as you wouldn't cut off someone's legs at birth because they can cope fine without them, you wouldn't actively do anything to encourage something that may work okay but still be a general handicap. You don't give affirmative action to encourage handicaps. Sorry.

Stupendous apparently thinks that by repeating the same arguments over and over again, they somehow gain in strength even when they are just as illogical and morally derelict as when he first began spouting this right-wing, holier-than-thou gibberish.

I'm repeating them hoping you'll actually give me a challenge and refute one of my arguments logically. As we've seen, your attempts have been pretty much a failure. Not necessarily because there may not be a logical, but most likely still flawed rebutal. But rather because it doesn't appear that you're even trying.

[selowitch]

Stupendous, it seems to me that every time I make a logical inference as to the likely result of something you propose, you reflexively shout "Strawman!" and whenever I try to make an analogy to explain the illogical of something you've said, you say "False Dilemma!" But you don't show how. Just because you label it that way does not make it so.

Also, you have a very annoying habit of identifying as fact that which is clearly a matter of opinion. All that succeeds in doing is weakening your position in this debate. For example, you say that every child should be raised by both a mother and father as if that's a fact. It's not. It's a value judgment, and a grotesquely wrong one at that.

Learn the difference between fact and opinion, please.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by selowitch 

What do you mean by "normally"? Whose norms are we talking about?

How things normally happen. There are exceptions for everything. It's illogical to throw out rules just because there are exceptions or to make every exception to the rules legitimate.

[lots of strawmen snipped]

So what? They can adopt. Your observation may be true...

That's all that's needed at this point. Thanks.

Again, so what? And how does this support your opinion re gay marriage? Answer: It doesn't.

No rebuttal to the fact- noted.

Yawn. Irrelevant as usual.

No rebuttal to the fact- noted.

True, but irrelevant.

Acknowledgment of the fact. Thanks.

Ridiculous, false, and also directly refuted by scientific research.

Question: If a child has a debilitating illness, which is more likely to be able to provide compatible donor cell material - a biological parent, or guardian who is not a blood relative.

Question: Are men and women different? If so, then surely they do things differently and provide a different sort of role model than only a single sex does, right?

...and most of the "scientific research" isn't all that scientific. There's a ton of stuff that never account for, and it's usually clear that the goal is to find equality in the data IMO. AGAIN, while you can show that people get along fine with handicaps, it's always better to simply have the optimum to begin with. Your notion that a loving man/women/child unit is not optimum hasn't been proven EVER. You an only prove that other options can work as well.

Overwhelming how? Even if I accepted your premises, your logic is hopelessly flawed. But you keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again as if that somehow improves it.

One unsupported opinion.

Let's tally the votes....3 non rebuttals, 1 question, 2 acknowledgment of facts, one bold assertion and an unsupported opinion.

At this point....I'm pretty much done with you. I'd hoped I'd get more challenging responses, but you're pretty much a broken record of non-rebutal unsupported opinion regurgitation. I stated facts either you concede or don't really choose to rebut and them you simply give an unsupported opinion as your final rebuttal. Don't be surprised if I can't find the energy to further entertain your less than stellar attempts at debate. No offense.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by selowitch 

Stupendous, it seems to me that every time I make a logical inference as to the likely result of something you propose, you reflexively shout "Strawman!" and whenever I try to make an analogy to explain the illogical of something you've said, you say "False Dilemma!" But you don't show how. Just because you label it that way does not make it so.

The strawman is where you aren't even arguing against any point I've made. The false dilemma is when you decide to make-up an end result based on your personal biases.

Also, you have a very annoying habit of identifying as fact that which is clearly a matter of opinion.

I've given you ample opportunity to refute these things as fact, and you've failed miserably.

For example, you say that every child should be raised by both a mother and father as if that's a fact. It's not. It's a value judgment, and a grotesquely wrong one at that.

Your opinion is noted. On the other hand, I can point you to surveys, studies and opinion polls that show that the majority of society disagrees. Of course, you'll engage in the typical far left tactic of replying "but this research done by left-leaning academia which never accounts for things like positive opposite in-home role models and the benefit of having additional blood related care-givers (for health reasons) among other things, says that other types of arrangements CAN work just as well. To which, I just shake my head out of weariness.

Learn the difference between fact and opinion, please.

I tried real hard to get you to help teach me, but you refused. At this point, I've given up on you either knowing the difference yourself, and/or being able to illustrate the difference.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

BZZZT. You've already failed the test. We're already heading into the guesssing unchartered waters...something 100% unnecessary with the current standard.

What are you talking about? Do you doubt the existence of menopause?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Sorry. Already the definition. Marriage is 100% legal for all adults in the US unless you're already married, or wish to marry a relative. Strike 2.

Not if you wish to marry somebody of the same sex.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

See above. You're looking for exceptions instead of simply excluding the rule that will never apply. This is never required or needed in any other forms of affirmative action, and in fact as I've shown in racial affirmative action, your form of logic fails in that instance as well.

This whole "affirmative action" analogy is way out of hand. Marriage is not the same as these other programs you're comparing it to, and affirmative action is a **** idea to begin with in most cases. Can you rationally explain why marriage should be limited to heterosexuals or can't you? No affirmative action bullshit. Just "Heterosexuals should be allowed to marry without any expectation that they'll have children because _____, but homosexuals should not be allowed to marry because _____."

[ebuddy]

For the record, I support civil unions for all and marriage by the Church for whomever they deem "fit". Arguments I don't understand;

- Gay marriage will define marriage down.
* marriage has already been defined as 50% successful by heterosexuals. It has been defined by heterosexuals as a life-long commitment you make at least twice in life to two different people with prenuptial agreements to protect assets. There's nothing to suggest the homosexual marital rate could fail any worse than the standard already set by the heterosexual community.

- Gays cannot procreate.
* neither can many heterosexual couples. Should we not allow them to marry because they don't fit the 'rightful living' mold? Also, there's nothing to suggest that by allowing gay marriage, heterosexuals will cease any and all activity leading to procreation. They're free to procreate and leave their children in the car with the windows shut regardless of whether or not gays can marry.

- A mother and father are best fit for raising children.
*Really? Better than the orphanage caring for the children whom heterosexuals have decided didn't deserve being left in the car with the windows shut, but couldn't bring themselves to raise on their own? I'd rather a loving couple raise the child than the State. I've seen what the State is capable of in road maintenance alone thanx. Again, allowing gays to marry will not create more gays and it will not stop heteros from doing what heteros do. I think homosexual couples are just as capable of managing their child's Sony Wii time as a heterosexual couple.

Homosexuals should not have to jump through the hoops of the justice system to get basic rights like inheritance to their partner's assets upon death and visiting them in the hospital when they fall ill. I find it interesting that those who are quick to tell us just how few homosexuals there are, are often the most afraid of how this small percentage of people will upset our entire societal balance. Why? Because we gave them the same rights we gave to others. Not special rights mind you, just the same. I don't get it.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Homosexuals should not have to jump through the hoops of the justice system to get basic rights like inheritance to their partner's assets upon death and visiting them in the hospital when they fall ill. I find it interesting that those who are quick to tell us just how few homosexuals there are, are often the most afraid of how this small percentage of people will upset our entire societal balance. Why? Because we gave them the same rights we gave to others. Not special rights mind you, just the same. I don't get it.

As I stated before, file a will, a medical power of attorney, or a living trust; problem solved. Cohabitating hetero couples have the same issues if they do not have these easy to obtain legal documents.

[Dakarʒ]

However hetero couples have the option to forego all that and marry. Hence why this is an issue.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

As I stated before, file a will, a medical power of attorney, or a living trust; problem solved. Cohabitating hetero couples have the same issues if they do not have these easy to obtain legal documents.

So you support eliminating marriage altogether?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

So you support eliminating marriage altogether?

Render unto Cesar....

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

As I stated before, file a will, a medical power of attorney, or a living trust; problem solved. Cohabitating hetero couples have the same issues if they do not have these easy to obtain legal documents.

What about citizenship for your spouse?

Easy to obtain if one is married, impossible otherwise.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Render unto Cesar....

So... Caesar wouldn't have appreciated the additional marital tax income from allowing gay marriage?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

As I stated before, file a will, a medical power of attorney, or a living trust; problem solved. Cohabitating hetero couples have the same issues if they do not have these easy to obtain legal documents.

We're not talking about "cohabitating hetero couples". After all, within a few years of this cohabitation in most states, they would be common-law married anyway. I can't find a compelling reason why homosexuals should have to jump through additional legal hoops for the exact same basic rights that heterosexuals have without even trying.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

We're not talking about "cohabitating hetero couples". After all, within a few years of this cohabitation in most states, they would be common-law married anyway. I can't find a compelling reason why homosexuals should have to jump through additional legal hoops for the exact same basic rights that heterosexuals have without even trying.

Or those who wish to be in plural marriages

12 states
Common-law marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

As I stated before, file a will, a medical power of attorney, or a living trust; problem solved. Cohabitating hetero couples have the same issues if they do not have these easy to obtain legal documents.

These forms are not always the same between states, so if a person moves, or takes a vacation in another state, they may still have the problem of legal recognition. Married heterosexual couples enjoy federal legal protection, no matter what state they're in.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

there [is] no compelling state interest to endorse emotions - love in this case

Just what is the state interest to endorse emotions? That, my friends, is a damn ****ing good question.

Even if the premises he lists that lead him to ask the question are flawed (which they ain't), that doesn't make the question any less valid.

Most importantly, it should be obvious that the state has a far less compelling interest to endorse homosexual marriage than it has for heterosexual marriage. Of course that doesn't mean there isn't any interest for the state to endorse homosexual marriage (or civil union), its interests just won't center around procreation.

It would make a bunch of people happy. I admit, that seems kind of a silly thing to say when talking about state interests, but I think I've got to come up with a better argument against it than "it's silly". Maybe if you think endorsing homosexual civil unions would be a bad thing, this doesn't count for much.

There's a fair amount of contractual rights and tax benefits granted to married couples that helps them leverage their status as a team to be more productive. I wouldn't be surprised if this would also make it easier to adopt for homosexual couples, which considering how important children are, I'm not going to turn down any good help that can be gotten.

So... Happier, more productive citizens who help clean up the mess of wanton heterosexuality. What's the argument for why the state would want to say "no thanks"?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Or those who wish to be in plural marriages

This is the "slippery slope" angle which at the surface has merit. However, all 50 States have laws forbidding multiple licensed marriages. They can seek to change those, but they'll be hard-pressed in succeeding. If the Federal government deems marriage a healthy societal construct and affords benefits to encourage that construct, at some point when challenged on the lacking equality of the measure in a purely Constitutional sense, have to consider whether or not the legislation has satisfied the intent. In this case it is not only possible this legislation has failed to encourage healthy behavior, but may in fact be bolstering unhealthy, hasty decisions to marry. I say... dissolve "marriage" at the Federal level acknowledging only civil unions, let States decide how influential the Church should be and what "marriage" shall be giving those of alternative lifestyles a choice of residency.

12 states
Common-law marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually, it includes several more States when considering "inheritance only" etc..., but overall I stand corrected.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

There's a fair amount of contractual rights and tax benefits granted to married couples that helps them leverage their status as a team to be more productive.

You incur a tax burden (the marriage penalty), not a benefit once you get married, unless the marriage results in children. In fact, the tax code encourages you NOT to get married, as there is a larger deduction for being a "single head of household" (single with children) You have a smaller deduction as a married couple than you would being single filing separate returns. The marriage penalty was reduced somewhat with the last tax code changes, but will expire if they are not made permanent.
Marriage penalty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unless one partner is a "stay at home" and does not work, they will incur a higher tax rate. Why would they want to lose the benefit of a lower tax burden after they get married

[Kevin]

Again, the state ignores marriages and only supports legal unions.

It's the only way to bring equal rights, without forcing either side's view on the matter. Or without the Gov forcing any view.

Again tolerance isn't "accepting everyone's views you deem tolerant"

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

You incur a tax burden (the marriage penalty), not a benefit once you get married, unless the marriage results in children.

I was thinking more estate planning/merging of assets, not to mention the non-tax related contractual benefits.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Again, the state ignores marriages and only supports legal unions.

It's the only way to bring equal rights, without forcing either side's view on the matter. Or without the Gov forcing any view.

I've been using marriage and civil union interchangeably, but what you say here is precisely what I mean, and I think is ideal.

[stupendousman]

A few quick rebuttals.

- The divorce rate is not 50%. That's a myth, encouraged and repeated by people and sources who either don't know any better, or have an agenda:
Fifty Percent of American Marriages End in Divorce-Fiction!
Divorce - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...and even if it were true, the number PEOPLE who have divorced would be a much lower number (the actual current rate is close to about 25% based on what I've read). People who are irresponsible or self-centered and do not have the maturity to make proper marriage decisions make up a good portion of the divorce rate by marrying and divorcing multiple times. For every Liz Taylor there are several people who live their whole life married to the same person. The truth is, the vast majority of people who marry, stayed married.

- The argument that people have taken marriage less seriously and therefore have denigrated the institution to the point where it's essentially meaningless, and therefore it's normal purpose is unneeded makes no sense. It's like stating that since a lot of poor minorities are gang-banging and do not speak proper English, the need for affirmative action to help them economically is unnecessary. You don't lessen the need for something just because some who would qualify aren't helping with the goal.

- PLEASE stop with the 'but not everyone can or will reproduce" broken record. It's been explained and rebutted time and again that you are talking about a small minority as an exception in a class which would otherwise benefit 100% from the affirmative action in question, the same as you'd have if for wealthy minorities taking advantage of affirmative action programs just because they fit the basic racial criteria. Gay relationships WILL NOT with 100% accuracy be able to fall into the basic criteria used WITHOUT APPLYING ANY STRICT TESTS OR INTRUSIVE QUESTIONING. We are are talking about a clear "apples to oranges" comparison here. Just because it's the first time a poster decides he's come up with a good reply doesn't mean that elsewhere in the thread someone's well intentioned argument hasn't already been shot down.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

This whole "affirmative action" analogy is way out of hand. Marriage is not the same as these other programs you're comparing it to, and affirmative action is a **** idea to begin with in most cases.

Your opinion is noted. I do understand that your inability to successfully rebut this point gives you the desire for me to come up with another reason, but this one which you don't seem to really be able to argue against is good enough in my book.

Can you rationally explain why marriage should be limited to heterosexuals or can't you?

There's about 4 pages of explanations here which you haven't been able to rebut with anything other than unsupported opinion or bold assertions. I think my record is pretty clear.

Also, for the record, I have no problem with alternative legal arrangements like "civil unions". They afford people (homosexual or not) who for whatever reason do not want to or cannot take advantage of marriage affirmative actions and still allow them to enter into a legal compact which will give them some of the legal rights (next of kin status, for instance) that marriage normally does. I know of some non-sexual elderly people who live with a platonic partner or room mate who have no other real family who might be able to easily assign benefits and rights to their partner with such an arrangement where they'd never be able to benefit from "marriage" - gay or otherwise.

I'd also have no problems with individual states deciding on their own without effecting how other states have to react in this case. I'm just opposed to the fallacy that the current system is unconstitutional or that there's no reasoning behind it. Later on down the line, if attitudes change and PEOPLE decide to change the system - that's another matter.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

So how does giving marriage benefits to homosexuals hurt society?

...

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I know of some non-sexual elderly people

That's just what they tell you.

Trust me, they be gettin' it ON.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I know of some non-sexual elderly people

That's just what they tell you.

Trust me, they be gettin' it ON.

KY and Viagra

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

KY and Viagra

When I was a boy, all we had was goose lard and whisky...

And we liked it.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

...

So how does giving marriage benefits to homosexuals hurt society?

No one's ever been able to answer that question, as it only hurts people who let it hurt them.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

No one's ever been able to answer that question, as it only hurts people who let it hurt them.

I dunno. Most people don't seem to have a problem with the rights, they have a problem with an alteration of the term "marriage".

I personally don't care what the term is, but I'm okay with people who don't feel the same way about it as long as the end result (equal rights) is the same.

[Dakarʒ]

That's my point. Unless homosexual marriage would have some type of demonstrable negative impact, you've really got no leg to stand on against its introduction/ continued discrimination*

(Or Civil Unions. The terminology isn't important to me personally)

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

No one's ever been able to answer that question, as it only hurts people who let it hurt them.

While I completely agree with you, the same argument could be made for allowing hate speech ("It only hurts people who let it hurt them").

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

That's my point. Unless homosexual marriage would have some type of demonstrable negative impact, you've really got no leg to stand on against its introduction/ continued discrimination*

If you can accept stupendousman's premise that the only reason marriage exists is to trick people into having children, then it's a small leap to think that allowing homos to marry each other would give them a reason to not hetero-marry and thus accidentally have sex, producing children.