At 3/28/13 06:05 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 3/28/13 05:40 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote:
Yet, encouraging reproduction is the reason marriage benefits exist.Prove it.
Demands for gay marriage have started only recently. Throughout the entire course of recorded human history, marriage has been understood as a union between a male and female in the interest of continuing the family line and the wealth/property attributed to its members. While different cultures expand(ed) upon this definition, the core purpose of marriage remains. This is especially true for American society - which has always run on the fundamental idea of procreation and the subsequent raising of children to responsible, contributing members of society. Benefits given to married couples originated within the context of this ageless philosophy. Not only do they encourage the growth of the population - which means an increased effective workforce, military, economy, and government - but, they do so by offering breaks so that a man and woman will be more inclined to be married and raise the future American citizen(s).
Equating gay marriage to the current institution (definition: a society or organization founded for a religious, educational, social, or similar purpose) not only undermines the purpose of marriage, but invalidates the need for benefits associated with it. Marriage is no longer a function in this scenario because the cost of benefits outweigh the return expected - plus it would be discriminatory. Benefits and aids are: payments made or entitlements available in accordance with a wage agreement, an insurance policy, or a public assistance program. They are created in order to help one's productivity in the community.
Subsequently, the benefit program of marriage is exclusive to heterosexual relationships because the purpose is exclusive to heterosexual relationships. I agree, however, that not all functions of marriage are exclusive to straight couples - and, this is why I propose a similar institution for gays perhaps giving benefits for adoptions. Civil rights seem to be inadequate to the gay community simply because the word is less romantic than "marriage." I believe this is entirely because of the solid core of marriage and its connotation. However, hurt feelings do not make sound arguments. Hurt feelings do not make one a candidate for a government aid program.
Professor Adam Kolasinski wrote an article in MIT's The Tech (Volume 124 - I5). He outlines many secular reasons against gay marriage. Although I do not fully agree with his position, I support it - especially in the portion below. He states:
Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.
Gay couples do not deserve procreation-related benefits. The institution of marriage must be eliminated or minimized in terms of benefits given to couples. I argue that neither of these solutions are optimal in comparison to developing a similar institution specific to gay relationships.
It's the separate but equal connotation.
I hate to disappoint you, but discrimination applies to communities not linguistics.
If the legal benefits are the costs you speak of, then WHY are you even talking about civil unions, as they grant to those exact costs?
They most certainly do not grant the exact costs. Here is a quote from the article I linked you to previously:
If you are in a same-sex marriage in one of the states where same-sex marriage is allowed (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and D.C.), or if you are in a domestic partnership or civil union in any of the states that offer those relationship options, none of the benefits of marriage under federal law will apply to you, because the federal government does not recognize these same-sex relationships. For example, you may not file joint federal income tax returns with your partner, even if your state allows you to file taxes jointly. And other federal benefits, such as Social Security death benefits and COBRA continuation insurance coverage, may not apply.
We all have had certain topics where we're constantly repeating ourselves. As a way to keep the debate going, and as a courtesy to those with whom we argue and those who have not yet entered the argument, we repeat our points as needed,
I realize and respect this forum etiquette. Should the topic grow to many more pages, I will have no issue restating my arguments to new participates. You, however, chose not to read the opening post when the topic was hardly a page long. This is why I found your replies frustrating and accounted for. Your inquiries were not requests for an expansion on my position, rather, passion-fueled questions pertaining to what my position entails. The latter may certainly be accomplished by thoroughly reading my posts and responses. As with all opponents to my arguments, I will have little desire to debate with someone who refuses to listen to my views (or appears to do so).