Be a Supporter!

A Different Spin On Gay Marriage

  • 3,547 Views
  • 147 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
Entice
Entice
  • Member since: Jun. 30, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 13
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-03-28 16:58:26 Reply

At 3/28/13 04:21 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: True, but no one is attempting to ban gay sex or relationships.

Psychology is irrelevant.

That's wasn't my point at all. My point was is that it is discrimination because you're allowing one couple to marry but not another based solely on one physical trait (homosexuality).

The only reason you gave for it not being discrimination is that homosexuality is an action not a trait. I pointed out that it's a trait of relationships. How is it not discrimination??

Correct. Unfortunately legislating specifics about heterosexual marriages would probably result in discouragement for couples to get married. Problems in the system are not excuses to actually INTRODUCE more problems.

Couples will not decide to not married because they're not going to receive benefits for the children that they're not planning on having anyways. That's absolutely nonsensical.

So I'd assume by the way your talking that you consider married couples that do not have children to be problems. How would you go about fixing that issue?

Since you didn't see it the first time, what do you think of giving incentives for having children specifically instead of for marriage? That'd clearly be the better way to encourage population growth since marriage doesn't necessarily involve having children.

No. Conservatives do not consider marriage to apply to homosexual relationships.

The only reason being that they're homosexual. Discrimination.

Gay marriage results in these benefits serving no purpose.

Except for... every benefit that's not directly related to raising children, which you've been completely ignoring for the sake of your argument.

Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-03-28 16:58:28 Reply

At 3/28/13 04:42 PM, BrianEtrius wrote:
Which is why if the definition is changed, it must evolve further and no longer be associated with benefits.
it's a legal argument of should gay marriage exist in the eyes of the law?

No it's not. It's a political argument until a law is interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Let me phrase this differently so you might understand this better: do you believe that there is benefit for society in which government not only prevents but also fails to recognize relationships an individual may choose to have throughout their life?

I understand the question just fine; the problem is you confuse "relationships" with "marriage."

Relationships, alone, are not (and should not be) acknowledged by the government. However, an acknowledgment comes when a privilege is provided by the government - this includes marriage. There is a clear benefit to society for encouraging marriage; there is not a benefit to society for spending money on institutions that serve no functions - this is the hypothetical merging of gay and heterosexual marriage.


"Yes!" - Fred Fredburger CC | Nemesis | Lit Lovers | Ideas Worth Spreading

BBS Signature
Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-03-28 17:06:13 Reply

At 3/28/13 04:58 PM, Entice wrote: The only reason you gave for it not being discrimination is that homosexuality is an action not a trait.

Please read my other responses. It's extremely annoying simply being able to repost my own statements.

Although many privileges of American citizenship are restricted, a legal immigrant is still allowed certain freedoms/rights. This includes freedom from racial discrimination. Why? Because discrimination is an infringement on negative rights - that is, human rights that are acquired from birth.

However, legal immigrants are excluded from benefits given to American citizens. These are positive rights, and include:

1. Protection from deportation.
2. The ability to leave the country for any period of time and retain permanent resident status.
3. Assistance programs (ie: Social Security, Medicaid, and Food Stamps)
4. The ability to vote for political candidates.
5. The ability to hold any office in government excluding Presidency.

Marriage is a positive right - a privilege system intended to benefit heterosexual couples exclusively. While gay couples are still allowed civil unions (another positive right, by the way), the institution of marriage was never intended for these. Thus, the denial of an application for benefits associated with marriage is non-discriminatory. Similarly, the benefits withheld from non-Americans is non-discriminatory.


"Yes!" - Fred Fredburger CC | Nemesis | Lit Lovers | Ideas Worth Spreading

BBS Signature
BrianEtrius
BrianEtrius
  • Member since: Sep. 28, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 32
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-03-28 17:18:20 Reply

At 3/28/13 04:58 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: No it's not. It's a political argument until a law is interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Okay then, give me the legally based political argument against gay marriage. That's all I've been asking for, but you keep beating around the bush. It's a very simple question.

I understand the question just fine; the problem is you confuse "relationships" with "marriage."

Marriage is a relationship. A long term one, but a relationship none the less. Even you can't deny that.

Relationships, alone, are not (and should not be) acknowledged by the government. However, an acknowledgment comes when a privilege is provided by the government - this includes marriage. There is a clear benefit to society for encouraging marriage; there is not a benefit to society for spending money on institutions that serve no functions - this is the hypothetical merging of gay and heterosexual marriage.

So basically now you're argument is, "we shouldn't legalize it, it costs too much money, even though it lowers the rights of certain citizens". That's like saying, "we shouldn't racially integrate schools because it'll cost to much." And there isn't a benefit for society by legalizing gay marriage? Hahaha that's laughable: marriage promotes long term investments and a helping other economic benefits to society that has no relation to procreation in any way.

Better idea. Replace all instances of "homosexual marriage" with "interracial marriage." The argument starts to sound really stupid right? That's because you're making the exact arguments that were bing made 60+ years ago about interracial marriage and look how that went! You look at pictures of people protesting racial integration back in the 60's and you think how could they do that but in 50 years people are going to be looking at the opponents of gay marriage the same way.


New to Politics?/ Friend of the Devil/ I review writing! PM me "Question everything generally thought to be obvious."-Dieter Rams

BBS Signature
Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-03-28 17:24:36 Reply

At 3/28/13 05:18 PM, BrianEtrius wrote:
At 3/28/13 04:58 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: No it's not. It's a political argument until a law is interpreted by the Supreme Court.
Okay then, give me the legally based political argument against gay marriage. That's all I've been asking for, but you keep beating around the bush. It's a very simple question.

It's a political argument until a law is interpreted by the Supreme Court.

If you want more elaboration, read the opening post and following two pages.

So basically now you're argument is, "We shouldn't legalize it, it [would cost] too much money,"

Actually, that was my argument from the start.

"... even though it lowers the rights of certain citizens."

Marriage is not a negative right.

"We shouldn't racially integrate schools because it'll cost to much."

Segregation is an infringement on a negative right.

Better idea. Replace all instances of "homosexual marriage" with "interracial marriage." The argument starts to sound really stupid right?

No, because there is only one species of male human and one species of female human.


"Yes!" - Fred Fredburger CC | Nemesis | Lit Lovers | Ideas Worth Spreading

BBS Signature
Entice
Entice
  • Member since: Jun. 30, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 13
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-03-28 17:26:06 Reply

At 3/28/13 05:06 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote:
At 3/28/13 04:58 PM, Entice wrote: The only reason you gave for it not being discrimination is that homosexuality is an action not a trait.
Please read my other responses. It's extremely annoying simply being able to repost my own statements.

I read that statement and skimmed this entire thread, it doesn't change anything.

Marriage is a positive right - a privilege system intended to benefit heterosexual couples exclusively. While gay couples are still allowed civil unions (another positive right, by the way), the institution of marriage was never intended for these. Thus, the denial of an application for benefits associated with marriage is non-discriminatory.

This is the relevant line. "Marriage was designed for heterosexual couples only" is not an argument against the institution being discriminatory. It just means that the institution is discriminatory by design for limiting marriages to only certain types of couples even though they're no different other than the fact that the cannot have children (which isn't a difference at all for some heterosexual couples).

This goes back to the reproduction argument, maybe you should try reading my post and try answering some of the questions I asked.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-03-28 17:28:26 Reply

At 3/28/13 03:26 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
Neither of the aspects you described are exclusive to marriage.

Nor is reproduction.

This is why my argument still stands - the only difference between civil unions and marriage are the benefits and connotation.

And when that connotation is whether or not the government views you as equals to the rest of your countrymen, it becomes quite important.

The benefits, as I have described, are purely designed to encourage population growth. Connotation is subjective and not even remotely close to being a good reason to make changes to an institution, besides the literal name you call it by.

How is it changing the institution? Nothing about marrige requires reproduction, so what's the harm in allowing people to get married who cannot reproduce by themselves, when they fit all the other purposes of marriage.


It doesn't hurt marriage (objectively), it results in a huge waste of money.

How, exactly? Guess how much my medding cost the government. $0. Not only that, I had to pay $20 or so to get the license, and I paid $400-ish to get the location (it was on government property). So, aside from the legal issues, which you say they would get in civil unions, how exactly is the government losing money here?

(I've omitted the following paragraphs because they are extremely redundant, and can be answered simply be re-reading some of my previous responses).

I'm asking direct questions seeking direct answers and I'm getting dodging, elusion, silence, or pussyfooting. So how's about you directly address some of the points. You do realize that some of the prior answers you have given to some points have been in conflict to other answers you have given.

So, repeat yourself (no, I don't mean cut and paste, I mean restate your argument in different words) as much as needed until we're finally able to get a direct answer from you. Your original post was a jumble of poor writing and the point were hidden in the paragraph length and the lack of any real editorial direction. SO we're asking questions for a reason, either to get a direct answer (which you are avoiding) or to clarify a point you apparently didn't make clear the first time around. Stop trying to take the high road and whine about repeating yourself when you made a terribly written OP and refuse to clarify. If you wanted blind group think, you shulda gone to a Tea Party rally, a feminist rally, or a Whole Foods store, you're not going to get it here.

Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-03-28 17:29:55 Reply

At 3/28/13 05:26 PM, Entice wrote: Maybe you should try reading my post and try answering some of the questions I asked.

I would if you had any intention of understanding my position in order to rebut it.

I read that statement and skimmed this entire thread, it doesn't change anything.

Actually read what I write, then I'll return the favor. I'm not wasting my time retyping the exact same thing because you are too lazy to spend 5-10 minutes of your time reading 2 pages of text.


"Yes!" - Fred Fredburger CC | Nemesis | Lit Lovers | Ideas Worth Spreading

BBS Signature
Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-03-28 17:40:22 Reply

At 3/28/13 05:28 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 3/28/13 03:26 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
Neither of the aspects you described are exclusive to marriage.
Nor is reproduction.

Yet, encouraging reproduction is the reason marriage benefits exist.

And when that connotation is whether or not the government views you as equals to the rest of your countrymen, it becomes quite important.

Well that is a laughable suggestion. How does the government view gays as non-equals?

It doesn't hurt marriage (objectively), it results in a huge waste of money.
So, aside from the legal issues, which you say they would get in civil unions, how exactly is the government losing money here?

The cost would be offsetting the expected return.

Google: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benef its-30190.html

You do realize that some of the prior answers you have given to some points have been in conflict to other answers you have given.

Such as?

So, repeat yourself (no, I don't mean cut and paste, I mean restate your argument in different words) as much as needed until we're finally able to get a direct answer from you. Your original post was a jumble of poor writing and the point were hidden in the paragraph length and the lack of any real editorial direction. SO we're asking questions for a reason, either to get a direct answer (which you are avoiding) or to clarify a point you apparently didn't make clear the first time around. Stop trying to take the high road and whine about repeating yourself when you made a terribly written OP and refuse to clarify. If you wanted blind group think, you shulda gone to a Tea Party rally, a feminist rally, or a Whole Foods store, you're not going to get it here.

This paragraph is an example of good writing and editorial direction? I found a total of zero questions in it, let alone direct ones.

Your questions have been answered. Maybe if you would stop asking the same questions, I wouldn't be able to get away with copy-pasting my original responses. Is it because you have no actual rebuttal?


"Yes!" - Fred Fredburger CC | Nemesis | Lit Lovers | Ideas Worth Spreading

BBS Signature
BrianEtrius
BrianEtrius
  • Member since: Sep. 28, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 32
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-03-28 17:46:03 Reply

At 3/28/13 05:24 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: It's a political argument until a law is interpreted by the Supreme Court.

If you want more elaboration, read the opening post and following two pages.

I have. You still haven't provided the legal basis for banning gay marriage. So considering again you've beaten around the bush on the question, I'm going to drop it for the time being.

So basically now you're argument is, "We shouldn't legalize it, it [would cost] too much money,"
Actually, that was my argument from the start.

Wow. How selfish. I'm so flabbergasted by this I'm no longer going to debate with you. If you don't realize how incredibly selfish, stupid, not to mention insulting that statement is, I don't know how you can promote yourself of being "open minded".


New to Politics?/ Friend of the Devil/ I review writing! PM me "Question everything generally thought to be obvious."-Dieter Rams

BBS Signature
Entice
Entice
  • Member since: Jun. 30, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 13
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-03-28 17:46:15 Reply

At 3/28/13 05:29 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: I would if you had any intention of understanding my position in order to rebut it.

Maybe if you willing to elaborate or give direct answers to questions it'd be easier. You seem completely unwilling to introduce anything past what was covered in the OP.

There's going to be some overlap but that's not an excuse to ignore questions and entire arguments.

Actually read what I write, then I'll return the favor. I'm not wasting my time retyping the exact same thing because you are too lazy to spend 5-10 minutes of your time reading 2 pages of text.

Reading or replying to this thread is a waste of time if you're only going to dodge questions and then outright accuse me of lying and not understanding your position, with no explanation or elaboration. Get off your high horse and try being concise and civil if you want to have a logical discussion with anyone.

Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-03-28 17:48:38 Reply

At 3/28/13 05:46 PM, Entice wrote: Maybe if you willing to elaborate or give direct answers to questions it'd be easier.

I'd love to hear these unanswered direct questions you've been asking.

Get off your high horse

But, I like it up here. =(


"Yes!" - Fred Fredburger CC | Nemesis | Lit Lovers | Ideas Worth Spreading

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-03-28 18:05:19 Reply

At 3/28/13 05:40 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: Yet, encouraging reproduction is the reason marriage benefits exist.

Prove it. Many people here have flat out refuted this claim, and yet you do nothing. Marriage is a property arrangement. Marriage is a custodial arrangement Marriage is an estate arrangement. Marriage is also a cluster of rights that merely apply to the spouses and have no bearin gupon whether any children exist whatsoever. How exactly is marriage a reproduction based institution? And NO you have not yet stated this.

Well that is a laughable suggestion. How does the government view gays as non-equals?

Because it tells them that while they may deserve the rights o heterosexuals, they still aren't good enough for the the same word. It's the separate but equal connotation.

The cost would be offsetting the expected return.
Google: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benef its-30190.html

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? This is a perfect example of your answers conflicting. First you say well, theyhave civil unions. Then you say the reasons for not allowing them to have the words are related to the costs of the benefits that they would get, even though they would get those same benefits and incur the same costs with civil unions. So which is it? Are the costs proibtive meaning civil unions shouldn;t be allowed, or should civil unions be allowed thus rendering your cost argument baseless?

Such as?

You say that marriage does not force reproduction, so heterocouples who marry do not need to have children or even be capable of having children. Then you say having children is the sole purpose of marriage, and that is why a couple who cannot have children should not be able to marry.

I found a total of zero questions in it, let alone direct ones.

Apparently, your reading skills are better than your writing skills, as there was never intended to be any questions in that paragraph. You deserve a slow villanous clap for that amazing feat of reading comprehension.


Your questions have been answered. Maybe if you would stop asking the same questions, I wouldn't be able to get away with copy-pasting my original responses. Is it because you have no actual rebuttal?

I'm asking the same questions because you refuse to give direct answers. Your OP was not direct, so pasting from it isn't clearing anything up. You also have shifted your goalposts numerous times to fit whichever specific point I am addressing at the time completely oblivious to how it is conflicting with your prior points. And it's extremely hard to point that out when you refuse to repeat anything you have said before. Much of the repetition people here are asking of you is intentional. To get you to repeat your old pointsin the hope that either you would realize how they are contradicting your new points, or allow us to easily show you such. You refuse to repeat and act like it never happened, as if your mental preztelling were actually a straight line.

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, especially if we think others are not getting them. I know you're new here, but take from those of us who have posted thousands of times in this forum (not just the BBS, but the politics forum) on how things go and the sometimes annoying redundancies you have to go through in order to effectivly debate a topic. Saying "I already answered that" may fly a couple times, but repeating it ad nauseum is bad form, and actually indicates to your opponent that you are not confident enough in your answers to actually defend them. Defending a pount requires a great deal of repititon. (even in such an organized atmosphere as a courtroom this rule rings true)

Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-03-28 18:05:30 Reply

At 3/28/13 05:46 PM, BrianEtrius wrote:
At 3/28/13 05:24 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote:
So basically now you're argument is, "We shouldn't legalize it, it [would cost] too much money,"
Actually, that was my argument from the start.
Wow. How selfish.

So be it. Many people require these benefits in order to have a productive life. Removing these benefits because a minority of people don't like the way a word is used is idiotic.


"Yes!" - Fred Fredburger CC | Nemesis | Lit Lovers | Ideas Worth Spreading

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-03-28 18:16:43 Reply

At 3/28/13 06:05 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: So be it. Many people require these benefits in order to have a productive life. Removing these benefits because a minority of people don't like the way a word is used is idiotic.

How is granting marriage rights homosexuals removing any benefits?

Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-03-28 19:35:13 Reply

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.

Sure!

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).


"Yes!" - Fred Fredburger CC | Nemesis | Lit Lovers | Ideas Worth Spreading

BBS Signature
Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-03-28 19:46:01 Reply

At 3/28/13 06:16 PM, Camarohusky wrote: How is granting marriage rights homosexuals removing any benefits?

As explained above, the benefits granted to traditional marriage couples serves a purpose which would become invalidated upon the introduction of homosexual relationships. Marriage, in this scenario, ceases to be an institution because it lacks a function and return. It can and should no longer be attributed with the same benefits because the cost to the government required to sponsor each marriage outweighs the predicted gain received from a growing population and economy.

Universalized marriage, in my opinion, would become a waste of money. Instead, the money should be designated to a different, more communally relevant social institution that actually functions as a government benefit/aid program. Not only will this help society as a whole, but it removes the possibility of discrimination.


"Yes!" - Fred Fredburger CC | Nemesis | Lit Lovers | Ideas Worth Spreading

BBS Signature
Ravariel
Ravariel
  • Member since: Apr. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Musician
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-03-28 21:35:14 Reply

At 3/28/13 06:05 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: So be it. Many people require these benefits in order to have a productive life. Removing these benefits because a minority of people don't like the way a word is used is idiotic.

And yet, you would deny similar benefits, that could allow more people to have a productive life because a minority of other people don't like the way a word is used.

Funny, that.


Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-03-28 21:39:31 Reply

At 3/28/13 09:35 PM, Ravariel wrote:
At 3/28/13 06:05 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: So be it. Many people require these benefits in order to have a productive life. Removing these benefits because a minority of people don't like the way a word is used is idiotic.
And yet, you would deny similar benefits, that could allow more people to have a productive life because a minority of other people don't like the way a word is used.

Demonstrate to me how the state benefits from gay marriage, and thus, is justified in offering the same aid associated with traditional marriage.


"Yes!" - Fred Fredburger CC | Nemesis | Lit Lovers | Ideas Worth Spreading

BBS Signature
Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-03-28 21:46:16 Reply

At 3/28/13 09:39 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: Demonstrate to me how the state benefits from gay marriage, and thus, is justified in offering the same aid associated with traditional marriage.

Gay Marriage Produced $259 Million for New York City Economy

Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-03-28 21:58:55 Reply

At 3/28/13 09:46 PM, Feoric wrote:
At 3/28/13 09:39 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: Demonstrate to me how the state benefits from gay marriage, and thus, is justified in offering the same aid associated with traditional marriage.
Gay Marriage Produced $259 Million for New York City Economy

That's fantastic! But, not nearly enough to account for actual productive members of society. Hence my reasoning for allowing certain benefits for gay couples, but not all associated with traditional marriage.


"Yes!" - Fred Fredburger CC | Nemesis | Lit Lovers | Ideas Worth Spreading

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-03-28 22:46:19 Reply

At 3/28/13 07:46 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: As explained above, the benefits granted to traditional marriage couples serves a purpose which would become invalidated upon the introduction of homosexual relationships. Marriage, in this scenario, ceases to be an institution because it lacks a function and return.

Feoric and I have ut forth numerous valid purposes for marriage that have zero to do with reproduction. So I repeat:

PROVE THAT REPRODUCTION IS THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE.

You're making this claim over nad over and over again, yet you have failed to even try and prove this You have merely stated it.

It can and should no longer be attributed with the same benefits because the cost to the government required to sponsor each marriage outweighs the predicted gain received from a growing population and economy.

Actually, the benefit of marriage comes from far more than simply growing the economy through increased numbers of humans. It solves extremely expensive property disputes before they being. It solves extremely expensive estate disputes before they begin. It streamlines the tax system thus saving money. It helps streamline custody disputes. Most importantly, it creates a stable arena through which a child, regardless of their birthparents' involvement or not, can grow and become a productive member of society.

On top of that, childbrith is increasingly ocurring outside of marriage, thus already rendering the institution as you view it obsolete.

Address those points.

Universalized marriage, in my opinion, would become a waste of money. Instead, the money should be designated to a different, more communally relevant social institution that actually functions as a government benefit/aid program. Not only will this help society as a whole, but it removes the possibility of discrimination.

Marriage is VERY communally relevant. It is a very sound method of dealing with numerous legal disputes that would arise otherwise. Not only that it is a method through which two consenting adults who wish to make a commitementto each other can do so, and thus get rights to the other the mere couples do not get.

So, again, how exactly does a homosexual marriage ruin it for everyone else? How does it ruin it more than allowing infertile people to wed, as you claim that reproduction is the sole purpose for marriage and granting such a license to those who cannot procreate by themselves invalidates the entire institution for all who enter into it.

You keep leaving these arguments by the wayside, but they keep on poking gigantic holes in your reasoning. Address them. You'll never graduate with a communications degree if you're unwilling to do this, and especially if you cannot even see it.

Ravariel
Ravariel
  • Member since: Apr. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Musician
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-03-28 23:18:36 Reply

At 3/28/13 09:39 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: Demonstrate to me how the state benefits from gay marriage, and thus, is justified in offering the same aid associated with traditional marriage.

Demonstrate to me how the State benefits from marriage at all, first.


Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-03-28 23:22:09 Reply

At 3/28/13 04:41 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: Well, I intend to draw attention to the reasons marriage benefits were created. Inclusion of non-heterosexual marriages makes the benefits invalid - they would need to be rewritten to suit everyone, which would probably result in less benefits if any at all. A new definition of marriage would serve no function beyond satisfying emotional needs (this oddly seems to be the gay community's most prevalent argument). I propose two different types of marriages with benefits exclusive to each - perhaps a redefinition of civil unions rather than traditional marriage.

I'm having a hard time following you. You made the claim in part IV that "...benefits given to married couples are intended to encourage people to marry in order to increase national the population..." and I've explained why this is not accurate. The benefits arose when governments recognized marriage for record-keeping and taxation purposes. This had absolutely nothing to do with population control, perhaps by proxy but not by the intent of the design. If you're fearful of sanctity, let me be clear to you that legality is not the same as morality.

If you think advocates of SSM are just trying to satiate "emotional needs" then I really don't know what to tell you other than that's pretty dishonest. The goal is equality, in exactly the kind of way that would be hard to argue. Meaning, the same words, the same rights, the same trust and the same treatment. This is why two different types of marriages isn't going to settle the issue, since it's a violation of equal protection. Different day, different court case, same shit. There are thousands of rights granted to spouses that gay couples don't get. This is obvious to anybody who has even bothered to study the issue so I can't help but call into question your sincerity on this topic when you say "[emotional needs] oddly seems to be the gay community's most prevalent argument."

Then I must respect the ruling, and adjust my political opinion on the issue to focus on removing benefits associated with marriages in the interest of saving the government's money.

I didn't want to pay for marriage benefits for interracial couples back in the 60's but I got over it.

But really, just because you pay taxes doesn't mean you get to pick and choose to whom the money goes. Some of your tax money goes towards welfare or hellfire missiles, but you can't tell the government they're only allowed to give your welfare money to whites because you think black people don't deserve it. That's discrimination and the government isn't allowed to do that. Marriage is the same way -- benefits either go to everyone or no one at all. Besides, no money is being "wasted" here because this is likely a revenue neutral thing. Allow me to demonstrate:

Weddings and divorces. This might seem really ridiculous and making mountains out of molehills but read the article:

"The Williams Institute at UCLA Law reported Monday that wedding spending by same-sex couples in the three newest states to approve gay marriage may generate more than $166 million over the next three years.
...
The Institute estimates that same-sex couples in Maine will collectively spend $15.5 million, Maryland couples will spend $62.6 million and Washingtonians will spend $88.5 million on weddings. The estimates are based on 2010 U.S. Census data and each state's average wedding spending. The researchers assumed that half of the states' same-sex couples (that's nearly 18,000 of about 35,000 gay couples in all three states combined) will marry within three years.
...
Economists have followed gay marriage's impact on the wedding industry and local economies since Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex unions in 2004. The Williams Institute found that from May 2004 to September 2008, the Massachusetts economy enjoyed a $111 million boost as a result of gay marriage legalization."

Not only is this strictly limited to wedding-related spending, but that's just three states, not the whole country. It's much larger when you consider spending as a family unit. Think about how much money is spent by married couples who start families. This has wide reaching impact to those sectors of the economy that deal with childcare, school supplies, toys, etc. I have a hard time seeing that the tax breaks gay couples will receive once they're able to file as a married couple wouldn't just be pumped back into the economy and stimulating it. If this isn't the case, then the loss would be so minuscule the cost to the average tax payer wouldn't be noticeable. Unless you can give me some figures instead of a thought experiment.

Besides, you're treading some really thin moral ice here. If you're concerned about subsidizing marriages, then allow me to ask you why is it okay for people who have divorced multiple times to reap the benefits of marriage when they wind up shifting the cost of their revenue stream onto us? Would you propose a divorce tax?

At 3/28/13 04:41 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote:
At 3/28/13 03:21 PM, Feoric wrote: You're wrong. The Supreme Court can rule that homosexuals are a quasi-suspect class as what happened in the 2nd Circuit with Windsor v. United States. What then?
Well now, that is why I call it a "premise." =)

A premise is an argument to support and/or justify a conclusion, so this really does nothing when put up against the due process clause. You don't need the Supreme Court to make a ruling for anyone to see that.

At 3/28/13 09:58 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: That's fantastic! But, not nearly enough to account for actual productive members of society. Hence my reasoning for allowing certain benefits for gay couples, but not all associated with traditional marriage.

You asked me to demonstrate how marriages benefit the state. I did not only that, but demonstrated how it effects the overall economy. And what's with this "actual productive members of society" bit? Are you subtly implying homosexuals aren't productive or anything? They're leeches on society? Anyway, can you demonstrate that SSM has a negative effect economic on states? Because I did my part.

Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-03-28 23:25:22 Reply

At 3/28/13 10:46 PM, Camarohusky wrote: PROVE THAT REPRODUCTION IS THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE.

What would you consider proof?

You're making this claim over nad over and over again, yet you have failed to even try and prove this You have merely stated it.

I just wrote a fairly long illustration of why marriage benefits are exclusive to heterosexual couples. Additionally, I have defined government benefits and how they relate to marriage as an institutional system. I would consider that "trying." But, I suppose this is subjective. By comparison, you flat out ignored all of it - just as you have ignored my entire side of the argument for the greater part of the topic. If you wish to continue the discussion with any goal of understanding the opposing position, you will address the points I have repeatedly brought up. Clearly you have no such motivation; rather, you ask me the same damn questions and claim I avoid them - completely oblivious to the specific arguments addressing each and every one.

Actually, the benefit of marriage....

All of these are true for societal benefits because they are bi-products of the institution as it currently stands (I've already gone over this). I will not deny that some could apply to homosexual unions - as I have said for the umpteenth time. However, there are costs to the government such as tax exemptions, benefits in social security, medicare, the military, loans, education, disability assistance, all types of insurance, compensations, retirement, hospital care, foster care, adoption, housing, discounts, and tuitions. All of these cost money in the interest of increasing the population and subsequently creating a more successful workforce, government, military, and economy.

On top of that, childbrith is increasingly ocurring outside of marriage, thus already rendering the institution as you view it obsolete.

Then let's take away the benefits because that's a total waste of money. (Fourth or fifth time I've said this)

So, again, how exactly does a homosexual marriage ruin it for everyone else?

We lose our benefits due to their invalidation.

You'll never graduate with a communications degree if you're unwilling to do this

Comm. courses have taught me that listening is tremendously more important than speaking. I would suggest you try it.


"Yes!" - Fred Fredburger CC | Nemesis | Lit Lovers | Ideas Worth Spreading

BBS Signature
SmilezRoyale
SmilezRoyale
  • Member since: Oct. 21, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-03-28 23:45:11 Reply

Traditionally marriage has had nothing to do with love, it functioned as a means of increasing one's social standing or forging alliances between families [for the wealthy and powerful] and for most all classes was a contract designed to ensure that neither father nor mother could abandon the children they decided to bring into the world.

Marriage also has some secondary social benefits in that it was a way for society to use a man's own libido to harness his productive energies. Men who are married are generally happier and healthier in spite of the fact that they work harder and end up having to make more money than they personally need to raise a family.

Easy access to pornography, the relative sexual openness of young single women, the fact that women can earn as much or more than men, and the ability of a mother to use the Government as a de-facto father-provider have all rendered Marriage more or less obsolete.

Therefore gay marriage violates the sanctity of marriage about as much as having sex with someone for the 100th time ends their virginity. An increasing proportion of the people who continue to have successful marriages are having fewer or no children at all, these sorts of people don't really "need" marriage. On the other hand, the kinds of people who are having children are uneducated, low IQ, and out of wedlock.

Even as a homosexual myself nothing annoys me more than gay activists ranting about 'rights' and 'equality' - both of which are denials of reality. But I am inclined to think that if Homosexual marriages can prove to be stable and encourage couples to be productive and law-abiding, they ought to be permitted.


On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.

thatawkwardkid
thatawkwardkid
  • Member since: Jan. 25, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Animator
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-03-28 23:53:19 Reply

HOLY MOTHER OF GOD THIS THREAD HAS SO MUCH READING!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-03-29 00:07:45 Reply

At 3/28/13 11:22 PM, Feoric wrote:
At 3/28/13 04:41 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: Well, I intend to draw attention to the reasons marriage benefits were created. Inclusion of non-heterosexual marriages makes the benefits invalid - they would need to be rewritten to suit everyone, which would probably result in less benefits if any at all. A new definition of marriage would serve no function beyond satisfying emotional needs (this oddly seems to be the gay community's most prevalent argument). I propose two different types of marriages with benefits exclusive to each - perhaps a redefinition of civil unions rather than traditional marriage.
I'm having a hard time following you. You made the claim in part IV that "...benefits given to married couples are intended to encourage people to marry in order to increase national the population..." and I've explained why this is not accurate. The benefits arose when governments recognized marriage for record-keeping and taxation purposes. This had absolutely nothing to do with population control, perhaps by proxy but not by the intent of the design. If you're fearful of sanctity, let me be clear to you that legality is not the same as morality.

If you think advocates of SSM are just trying to satiate "emotional needs" then I really don't know what to tell you other than that's pretty dishonest. The goal is equality, in exactly the kind of way that would be hard to argue. Meaning, the same words, the same rights, the same trust and the same treatment. This is why two different types of marriages isn't going to settle the issue, since it's a violation of equal protection. Different day, different court case, same shit. There are thousands of rights granted to spouses that gay couples don't get. This is obvious to anybody who has even bothered to study the issue so I can't help but call into question your sincerity on this topic when you say "[emotional needs] oddly seems to be the gay community's most prevalent argument."

I'd agree that not all benefits are exclusive to the idea of procreation and child-rearing; however, the Turner v. Safley and Loving v. Virginia cases were not in regards to homosexual couples. Given, the issue is being reviewed, but because homosexual marriages are not federally recognized, neither could the benefits have been designed to accommodate gay couples. I believe this is clear given the nation's stance a few years ago. A court ruling in favor of gay marriage would be such a monumental change to the institution, that I argue the benefits would need to be rewritten completely in order to save a blow to the government. Of course it's true that I have no real say over where my tax dollars currently go, but the First Amendment gives me the right to voice an opinion and perhaps have a resulting influence on future tax use which I disagree with.

Also, I am aware that the gay community's primary focus is to receive marriage benefits. What I meant was that the argument I hear the most is emotionally-based and not with regards to an objective function of the institution.

[Article]
Not only is this strictly limited to wedding-related spending, but that's just three states, not the whole country. It's much larger when you consider spending as a family unit. Think about how much money is spent by married couples who start families. This has wide reaching impact to those sectors of the economy that deal with childcare, school supplies, toys, etc. I have a hard time seeing that the tax breaks gay couples will receive once they're able to file as a married couple wouldn't just be pumped back into the economy and stimulating it. If this isn't the case, then the loss would be so minuscule the cost to the average tax payer wouldn't be noticeable. Unless you can give me some figures instead of a thought experiment.

But, the revenue generated by the current generation could inevitably be more than the following if the population declines. Plus, contributing members of society offer more than cash alone (~$2M lifetime earned for a 50K income). I believe the products of human beings are obvious. Again, I do not disagree with gay couples receiving any benefits at all - because not all functions of marriage are exclusive to heterosexual couples. I would argue, however, that the simple ability of a heterosexual couple to procreate is deserving of more benefits because the predicted return to the community is greater than simply revenue. Or, we should simply decrease the number of benefits given to heterosexual couples to offset the lost products of contributing members of society.

The advancement of the American race is, in my eyes, more important. I am not supporting a totalitarian grip on who can and cannot marry - rather, being more supportive of institutions that accomplish this ongoing goal. Gay marriage would be an institution with less functionality than a normal one, which is why allowing it would result in the benefits associated with marriage no longer being as optimal as they currently are.

Besides, you're treading some really thin moral ice here. If you're concerned about subsidizing marriages, then allow me to ask you why is it okay for people who have divorced multiple times to reap the benefits of marriage when they wind up shifting the cost of their revenue stream onto us? Would you propose a divorce tax?

Absolutely, I would want some sort of divorce deterrent (apart from reasons such as domestic abuse). But, I think my reason for this is more along the lines of my morals rather than the subject of debate. If marriage is an institution (and it is), then canceling membership should cancel the benefits. A divorce tax would probably be a simple way of ensuring people marry for the right reasons, and also reducing the odds of leaving a child without two loving parents.

Are you subtly implying homosexuals aren't productive or anything? They're leeches on society?

I am simply suggesting that gay couples would be accepting benefits for a function they are physically unable to accomplish. Leeching would be harsh, but synonymous.


"Yes!" - Fred Fredburger CC | Nemesis | Lit Lovers | Ideas Worth Spreading

BBS Signature
Ravariel
Ravariel
  • Member since: Apr. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Musician
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-03-29 00:15:09 Reply

At 3/29/13 12:07 AM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: I am simply suggesting that gay couples would be accepting benefits for a function they are physically unable to accomplish. Leeching would be harsh, but synonymous.

I wonder if I'm actually the first one to say this in this topic, but...

Gay people actually can and do have children. All the time. It's not even, like, rare among them.


Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-03-29 00:15:20 Reply

At 3/28/13 11:25 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: I just wrote a fairly long illustration of why marriage benefits are exclusive to heterosexual couples.

My bad. In the flurry of posts I saw your second one there, but not the long first one. So ignore that. Let take a peek at it.

All of these are true for societal benefits because they are bi-products of the institution as it currently stands (I've already gone over this).

No you haven't. You misstated the actual historical purpose of marriage and act as if any of the numerous other societal benefits of the institution are somehow rendered obsolete if reproduction is not involved.

Marriage began as a property sharing and powerbroking institution among the wealthy. It spread down to the masses in a very different manner when people started coming together and wished to join as permanent partners. Child bearing was originally a mere beneficial byproduct of such an agreement. It was not until the State got involved that child bearing was ever considered a pimary purose (rather than a passive byproduct) of the institution. Still strikes as odd, because people were having 8 children apiece long before the state ever gave a shit about encouraging reproduction.

However, there are costs to the government such as tax exemptions, benefits in social security, medicare, the military, loans, education, disability assistance, all types of insurance, compensations, retirement, hospital care, foster care, adoption, housing, discounts, and tuitions. All of these cost money in the interest of increasing the population and subsequently creating a more successful workforce, government, military, and economy.

I would give that to you, if propogating the population were even one of the major benefits of marriage. However it is not. Especially today where a huge number of children are born out of wedlock. Frankly, because of the mass number of kiddos born out of wedlock, marriage as a vehicle for encouraging reproduction is already obsolete. Marriage provides a whole plethora of non-conception related benefits to society. With the massive adoption machine we have, the need for a couple to actually concieve does not exist. They can adopt a child and then proceed through the rest of life as if they hd concieved themselves. Such stability is exponentially more important to the economy and to the government than mere conception. I've been intimately involved in the child welfare system and can attest to how much capital is wasted, in the form of money, lives, and potential, by couples who can concieve with the best of them, but cannot seem to run a simple stable household. Tell me how their expense is worth more to society than the expense of gay marriage? Tell me how these other societal beneifts of marriage somehow dissappear when a couple does not concieve. Finaly, please will you addres this repetaed question: If conception is the ONLY benefit of marriage, why do we let infertile people marry? Is that not functionally the same as allowing homosexuals to marry?


Then let's take away the benefits because that's a total waste of money. (Fourth or fifth time I've said this)

But the vast majority of the benefits have little or nothing to do with children. The benefits are a way for people to come together as a family and (here's the all important kicker) legally be treated as such. Why should we strip all of the legal benefits applied to those who wish to join together as a family in marriage because one increasingly minor part of marriage has become obsolete? Especially when all of the other benefits remain useful?

We lose our benefits due to their invalidation.

Uselessness and invalidation are two different concepts. Even if you were right and the benefits became useless, that stil doesn't mean they'd go away. It would take an affirmative move that thus strips those benefits away. And as you have already conceded, the purpose you claim to be the sole purpose of marriage, is already pretty dang uselss.

Comm. courses have taught me that listening is tremendously more important than speaking. I would suggest you try it.

Listening only works if the speaker is willing to clarify themselves when needed, as you have chosen not to do.