Be a Supporter!

A Different Spin On Gay Marriage

  • 3,697 Views
  • 147 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
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 00:37:06 Reply

At 3/28/13 07:35 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: 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.

But you just stated two core purposes.

Now, even if you were right here, and conception was the only reason for historical marriage, why should we abandon it now when its benefits and purposes have branched out far from that now insignificant detail?

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.

How would marriage be discriminatory. Who would it discriminate against? The unmarried? Unmarried heterosexual have the right to marry their significant others (or anyone off the side of the street for that matter, so long as they're of the opposite sex) and recieve those benefits even if they're unwilling or unable to have children. WHy shouldn;t homosexuals have the same opportunity? Why shouldn't they, especially when the requirements do not require the stated and sole purpose of marriage, as you so put it?


Subsequently, the benefit program of marriage is exclusive to heterosexual relationships because the purpose is exclusive to heterosexual relationships.

No it's not. As Rydia put forward, homosexuals can concieve too, just not with their partner. So they can even make a simple end run around your supposed purpose. Homosexuals can get their hands on children in a parental role, even as their biological parent. So why should we deny them the benefits that would help them beter raise that child when there are numerous concieving heterosexuals that do not have the ability to properly raise a child? Or is there mere number of children all you care about? If that's the case why don't we just have conception houses where we all must report to donate or recieve twice a month and then leave on our merry way? That would very much encourage population growth, and would do it far better than marriage does.

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:

Kolasinski isn't a lawyer. He isn't a political scinece professor. He isn't a sociolgy or anthropology professor. He's a professor of FINANCE. His specialty is not weighing personal or societal needs. Nor is it in understanding and interpretting the law. His specialty is in money. He may be able to write a very intricate and beautiful balance sheet regarding homosexual marriage, but he has no experience in dealing with non-financial matters. HAving very close contact with the University of Washington School of Business (see the avatar and my name), I can attest that it is not an institution that really spends much time regarding the human condition and how it relates to society, the law, or even to business decisions. The Foster school is all about business, and it spends much more time on the numbers.


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.

We have more than enough children in scoeity today. What we need is not more children, but more good places to put them. If there are quality homsexual couple out there (and the most definitely are a lot of them) who wish to be aprents, let's give them the tools (those granted in marriage) to do it to the best of their ability.


Gay couples do not deserve procreation-related benefits.

Let's take a peekarooney at the marriage benefits related to conception, that cannot be supplanted by other methods of acquiring a child.

... crickets...

anyone?

Beuller?

Oh, hey! I found one! Spousal insurance that can be used for prenatal care and birth expenses! ONE. THE ONLY ONE. So that sharing of insurance for purposes of giving childbirth is the reason homosexual cannot marry?


I hate to disappoint you, but discrimination applies to communities not linguistics.

It does apply to linguistics. If the government called all black people n****rs all the time, would that not be discrimination? Would that not be the government openly stating that is disfavors such a class? Would that not have severe social of pschyological effects on the class and those deaing with the class?

They most certainly do not grant the exact costs. Here is a quote from the article I linked you to previously:

Then that wouldn't be the "all but marriage" situation you keep describing where all homosexuals want is the word. Another shifted goalpost. Do you not see this?

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-03-29 13:43:52 Reply

At 3/29/13 12:07 AM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: 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.

You are right but I'm not sure what your point is. I never claimed those cases were in regards to homosexual couples, I made the argument that under rational review basis it is entirely possible and in my opinion inevitable that homosexuals will be deemed a quasi-suspect class. My point is that there will come a time where SSM has a Loving-esque moment in the Supreme Court, where to deny same-sex marriage or to have two classes of marriages would be a violation of the due process clause, and that the Supreme Court may very possibly extend full suspect classification status to homosexuals in our lifetimes.

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 cannot think of any benefits given to married heterosexual couples that somehow cannot apply to homosexual married couples. Pray tell, what on this list immediately jumps out at you that says "impossible!" for gay couples. Which of these benefits is based on reproduction? Do you not concede that the point is moot anyway since gay couples can have children via insemination or adoption? If you do find benefit(s) inapplicable, how does it nullify the institution as a whole?

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.

It's not clear because the opinion on this issue is not static and has changed dramatically within the past 5 years, let alone the past 10 or 20. I'm simply not seeing any reason at all why an overhaul of marriage benefits is inevitable when SSM is federally recognized and legal, nor am I seeing anything that would cause a "blow to the government." How is this going to happen? Are the markets going to crash? Our credit rating get downgraded? Will we suffer a deflationary spiral? Is some rouge nation going to declare war on us? What on earth are you seeing here?

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.

No, the goal here is not to receive marriage benefits, this is what I'm talking about. Their goal is not to be a black sheep of society; benefits are a tertiary effect of achieving that goal. I have no idea how people use the "emotionally based" argument so often. Logic is derived from emotion. Logic is not supreme to emotion any more than emotion is supreme to logic

But, the revenue generated by the current generation could inevitably be more than the following if the population declines.

This is a total non-sequitur. Do we somehow have the inability to bring in more revenue? Are tax rates locked in when gay marriage is federally recognized? Why is the population going to decline? What is going to cause negative population growth?

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.

Again, homosexuals have the ability to procreate and adopt. They do it all the damn time. Does a person who has been adopted by a gay couple or was conceived via insemination contribute less to society? Do gay parents do an inferior job at raising children to become productive members of society? How do you quantify such a thing? What is society losing? I'm having a really hard time to think what you could possibly mean when you say "lost products." What you're saying is functionally equivalent to saying "we should tax gay people" when you make the point "contributing members of society offer more than cash alone" as a reason for being against SSM.

The advancement of the American race is, in my eyes, more important.

Hold on a second, I need you to clarify something. What do you mean by American race? Do you mean, like, a metaphorical race en route to a goal? Or do you mean the classification? I know you're striving to get a degree in anthropology so I would certainly hope you don't mean the latter.

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.

And, again, no matter how many times I read and re-read your posts, I have yet to see a clear defined rubric that outlines how the institution of marriage becomes unstable when gays are able to partake in the service of marriage, and how this inevitably makes benefits associated with the institution not optimal. I'm starting to think I'm dumb.

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.

Okay fair enough, I won't open this can of worms.

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.

Gay couples are completely capable of being loving and supporting parents and spouses. The only cost on society is not letting them meet this potential to the fullest extent.

Light
Light
  • Member since: May. 29, 2006
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Reader
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-03-29 19:08:21 Reply

At 3/28/13 04:21 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote:
At 3/28/13 03:30 PM, Light wrote:
At 3/28/13 12:02 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: Under my premise, It can no longer be argued that banning gay marriage (one with benefits identical to marriage) is discriminatory as I have illustrated in my previous responses to other users.
I skimmed through them.
Then evidently you have no desire to have an actual discussion on the issue. No problem.

I do.

Otherwise, I wouldn't have posted in this thread. I hope you're not trying to avoid a discussion with me on the matter. Are you?


I was formerly known as "Jedi-Master."

"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."--Dr. Seuss

BBS Signature
Light
Light
  • Member since: May. 29, 2006
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Reader
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-03-29 19:10:35 Reply

At 3/29/13 07:08 PM, Light wrote:

Otherwise, I wouldn't have posted in this thread. I hope you're not trying to avoid a discussion with me on the matter. Are you?

*Wouldn't have posted again.


I was formerly known as "Jedi-Master."

"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."--Dr. Seuss

BBS Signature
Elfer
Elfer
  • Member since: Jan. 21, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 38
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-03-29 20:25:53 Reply

At 3/26/13 09:40 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: Marriage, as it's root, is intended to unite families together and subsequently produce more (and more successful) members.

In theory, maybe. The root of government having a common law involvement in marriage was to ensure legitimate inheritance. For example, say you're the son of a duke who owns a great deal of land. He wants an alliance with a neighbouring duke to gain a strategic advantage in some military conflict. As part of the deal, you will marry the neighbouring duke's daughter, thus giving their family some influence over your family's land and resources, because they will be inherited by your firstborn son.

However, you've spent the last five years whoring around the nearby villages, and you've fathered two or three bastard children. How can you ensure that they have no claim over the inheritance? In essence, how can men protect their property and ability to make strategic marriages of their children, but still be able to bang all the local wenches? The answer is for all of the wealthy people to agree on a common law whereby only children produced inside a marriage are legitimate heirs. This will be enforced by the crown so that everyone has to play along.

These days there's really no need for the government to be involved.

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 20:26:42 Reply

At 3/29/13 12:37 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 3/28/13 07:35 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: 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.
But you just stated two core purposes.

Because there are no others. This is why I said, while different cultures expand(ed) upon this definition, the core purpose of marriage remains. There are variations of marriage around the developed world, but these two principles remain consistent.

Now, even if you were right here, and conception was the only reason for historical marriage, why should we abandon it now when its benefits and purposes have branched out far from that now insignificant detail?

I have repeatedly suggested rewriting the benefits in order to accommodate non-productive members of the institution.

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.
How would marriage be discriminatory. Who would it discriminate against?

It would become discriminatory if the benefits are only given to heterosexual institution members for procreation, and not homosexual. However, full benefits for both parties would be a waste of money as a primary function has been lost. I've also said this repeatedly.

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:
Kolasinski isn't a lawyer. He isn't a political scinece professor. He isn't a sociolgy or anthropology professor. He's a professor of FINANCE.

Are you specialized in "weighing personal or societal needs?" If not, why should I listen to your argument? I am currently majoring in cultural anthropology - which is similar to what most people understand as sociology. In other words, my educational focus is actually ON this subject (rather, the philosophical and cultural side of it). Does this make me more qualified than you, a "close contact with the University of Washington School of Business", to speak on the needs of society? I'd say so. And, judging by your reasoning for dismissing the words of Kolasinski, you would have to agree. But, obviously, you can't admit this and will have to backpedal the hell out of that ditch. So, rather than waiting for yet another redundant/irrelevant response from you, I will restate the quote, and this time, request an actual argument contesting it:

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.

What contribution would homosexual marriages offer to the community that heterosexual couples would be excluded from - thus, justifying no changes to the benefit program primarily intended to encourage population growth?

If none, the institution of marriage becomes convoluted upon the introduction of gays, and must be dismantled and subsequently reorganized with a different foundation and specific, universal function.

We have more than enough children in scoeity today.

By what standard? Also, I have already suggested adoption benefits for a gay institution.

Gay couples do not deserve procreation-related benefits.
Let's take a peekarooney at the marriage benefits related to conception, that cannot be supplanted by other methods of acquiring a child.

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.

I hate to disappoint you, but discrimination applies to communities not linguistics.
It does apply to linguistics. If the government called all black people n****rs all the time, would that not be discrimination?

As I have said in nearly every single response: institutions, by definition, cannot be discriminatory unless they delegate certain rights to members within the system. "N*s" and "F*gs" are not institutions. Moreover, you cannot compare two institutions together and claim one is discriminatory against the other because it serves a function that certain people can't apply for. Under that premise, birthright American citizenship is discriminatory against both legal and illegal immigrants.


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

BBS Signature
HibiscusMallow
HibiscusMallow
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-03-29 21:02:07 Reply

At 3/28/13 12:22 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: Interesting article! I had no idea something as odd as finger length could play a role in determining one's sexual tendencies. However, from what I saw, the study was not indicative of anything objective (plus, they mentioned a problem with the males requiring "several older brothers").

There is a strong correlation though, this suggests there is a range of factors which affect prenatal hormones and contribute to the likelihood of someone becoming a homosexual.

I am not sure what this one was for. A defect in the defeminization and/or masculinization process causing "homosexuality" would have to be true in nearly 100% of cases. Moreover, this same function is not present in females; therefore, it cannot explain lesbianism.

If the brain fails to masculinize in a male the male will become homosexual, if the brain masculinizes in a female the female will become homosexual, the trigger for masculinization or lack thereof is abnormal prenatal hormones. In theory, it would be possible to clone you and create the conditions in the womb needed to make the clone a homosexual. Of note is the fact that hypermasculinization in men can result in homosexuality along with lack of masculinization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_sexual_orienta tion

Independent studies indicate that homosexual women have masculinized (lower) digit ratios, and homosexual men show either hyper-masculinized or feminized ratios. These findings reinforce the prenatal androgen model - abnormal prenatal hormone exposure is related to the development of human homosexuality.
Whoops, you misread! I was describing a broad category - different types of benefits and their functions as such; not different types of marriage benefits. Apologies for the confusion!

So why does the state need to step in? Why don't people just decide on an agreement on their own accord, maybe sign a legitimate business deal in a civil court at their own legal expense if they want to share property or whatever?

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 21:08:12 Reply

At 3/29/13 01:43 PM, Feoric wrote:
At 3/29/13 12:07 AM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: 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.
You are right but I'm not sure what your point is. I never claimed those cases were in regards to homosexual couples, I made the argument that under rational review basis it is entirely possible and in my opinion inevitable that homosexuals will be deemed a quasi-suspect class. My point is that there will come a time where SSM has a Loving-esque moment in the Supreme Court, where to deny same-sex marriage or to have two classes of marriages would be a violation of the due process clause, and that the Supreme Court may very possibly extend full suspect classification status to homosexuals in our lifetimes.

I'm not necessarily denying reality and claiming that SSM will never happen. Because, when it does, I feel that my arguments will have more sustenance and actual birth statistics to justify a reorganization of benefits. Currently, the benefits do not apply to gay couples - so the benefits were not conceived to apply to gay couples. Of course it is possible to now say which ones will apply (most of them), but this is because we are discussing human beings. My point is that upon the introduction of SSM, the benefits will become extremely costly and a damaging weight for future generations who lack the numbers to make up for the difference made.

(Hopefully, this addresses your following paragraph as well).

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.
It's not clear because the opinion on this issue is not static and has changed dramatically within the past 5 years, let alone the past 10 or 20. I'm simply not seeing any reason at all why an overhaul of marriage benefits is inevitable when SSM is federally recognized and legal, nor am I seeing anything that would cause a "blow to the government." How is this going to happen? Are the markets going to crash? Our credit rating get downgraded? Will we suffer a deflationary spiral? Is some rouge nation going to declare war on us? What on earth are you seeing here?

Oh, I don't mean to say that the loss of benefits will be inevitable - I am saying it should be inevitable to offset the loss of products. Sure, with the concept of IVF, gay couples would able to "reproduce." But, marriage would be unrelated to procreation and I doubt most couples will consider this.

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.
No, the goal here is not to receive marriage benefits, this is what I'm talking about. Their goal is not to be a black sheep of society; benefits are a tertiary effect of achieving that goal. I have no idea how people use the "emotionally based" argument so often. Logic is derived from emotion. Logic is not supreme to emotion any more than emotion is supreme to logic

What is the gay community's goal if it is not to receive marital benefits? They want the word? Because, that would be a really stupid reason, in my honest opinion.

But, the revenue generated by the current generation could inevitably be more than the following if the population declines.
This is a total non-sequitur. Do we somehow have the inability to bring in more revenue? Are tax rates locked in when gay marriage is federally recognized? Why is the population going to decline? What is going to cause negative population growth?

The cost will increase because it assumes the return (a future workforce) is at the same ratio. The institution currently operates under the idea that a new generation will be born from the members. Introducing gays will not increase the probability for a larger population, yet the costs increase as if it will because marriage would be identical to present-day.

In an investment model, this is equivalent to purchasing stock A and stock B at the same price, while stock B offers a negative return rate. Repeating this process inevitably results in loss in revenue - unless, stock A is able to make up the difference. But, even then, purchasing stock B (if you must purchase it at all) for the same price as stock A is hardly optimal.

I'm having a really hard time to think what you could possibly mean when you say "lost products." What you're saying is functionally equivalent to saying "we should tax gay people" when you make the point "contributing members of society offer more than cash alone" as a reason for being against SSM.

Gays cannot naturally procreate. Unless we were to make IVF mandatory (ridiculous), then they are receiving benefits on the assumption they can naturally procreate. But, since marriage is an encouragement, it wouldn't legally be wrong to offer identical benefits - I'm saying it would be inefficient and, in fact, harmful. It would be much simpler to have two separate institutions, or at least a substantial decrease in the amount of benefits given to all couples.

The advancement of the American race is, in my eyes, more important.
Hold on a second, I need you to clarify something. What do you mean by American race? Do you mean, like, a metaphorical race en route to a goal? Or do you mean the classification? I know you're striving to get a degree in anthropology so I would certainly hope you don't mean the latter.

The American race as in the American people, culture, way of life, society, etc. The nation itself. I meant it as an expression really, but it turned out to be a poor choice of words.

I'm starting to think I'm dumb.

Certainly not! I am the youngest, and most naive here!

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.
Gay couples are completely capable of being loving and supporting parents and spouses. The only cost on society is not letting them meet this potential to the fullest extent.

True, which is why the institution needs to be redefined with them. And after a few years, statistics can be used for both sides since we're speaking about the future.


"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 2013-03-29 21:30:08 Reply

At 3/29/13 09:02 PM, HibiscusMallow wrote:
At 3/28/13 12:22 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: Interesting article! I had no idea something as odd as finger length could play a role in determining one's sexual tendencies. However, from what I saw, the study was not indicative of anything objective (plus, they mentioned a problem with the males requiring "several older brothers").
There is a strong correlation though, this suggests there is a range of factors which affect prenatal hormones and contribute to the likelihood of someone becoming a homosexual.

What I mean, scientifically, is that similarities in variables do not necessarily equate to direct correlation. Here's an example:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8943121/Taxi -drivers-brains-rewired-by-The-Knowledge.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=london-taxi -memory

This indicates that the physical anatomy of a taxi driver is different from the average person's. Does their memory bank, stubbornness, and difficulty at adaptation define them as taxi drivers? Absolutely not. They are simply similarities either developed or naturally inherited that allow drivers to operate more efficiently in their environment. There are no genes for "taxi driver" because "taxi driver" is an attribute based on an action.

Similarly, there are no genes for "gay" because "gay" is an attribute based on an action. Both are influenced solely by environmental and psychological factors with the exception of some inborn traits that may result in one engaging in either activity. To induce that there is a "gay gene" because certain people who claim to be gay have other similar traits that aren't even exclusive to their orientation is backward science.

If the brain fails to masculinize in a male the male will become homosexual, if the brain masculinizes in a female the female will become homosexual, the trigger for masculinization or lack thereof is abnormal prenatal hormones.

I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. The opposite is not true, disruption of normal sexual development in females does not lead to male-typical endpoints. This probably has to do with the X and Y chromosomes. But again, the malfunction of these processes are not exclusive to homosexuals.

Whoops, you misread! I was describing a broad category - different types of benefits and their functions as such; not different types of marriage benefits. Apologies for the confusion!
So why does the state need to step in? Why don't people just decide on an agreement on their own accord, maybe sign a legitimate business deal in a civil court at their own legal expense if they want to share property or whatever?

Personally, I agree. I don't think marriage should have anything to do with the state.


"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 2013-03-29 23:22:56 Reply

At 3/29/13 08:26 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: Because there are no others. This is why I said, while different cultures expand(ed) upon this definition, the core purpose of marriage remains. There are variations of marriage around the developed world, but these two principles remain consistent.

You stated that marriage was for the carrying on of family lines and a method to deal with property issues.

I have repeatedly suggested rewriting the benefits in order to accommodate non-productive members of the institution.

Would you pleace list the specific benefits of marriage that can only apply to couples who can concieve solely within the couple?

It would become discriminatory if the benefits are only given to heterosexual institution members for procreation, and not homosexual. However, full benefits for both parties would be a waste of money as a primary function has been lost. I've also said this repeatedly.

There are only a few benefits (if any) that are conception required. The vast remainder either ignore the method through which the child was brought into the family or, for the majority of the benefits, do not even take into account whether a child exists at all.

Also, providing benefits based on biological or physical capacity is not discriminatory. Take the ADA for example. Take women's and men's health initiatives. The military is one of these as well. I am forbidden from joining the military for physical reasons. Is it discrimination against me? No.

Are you specialized in "weighing personal or societal needs?" If not, why should I listen to your argument? I am currently majoring in cultural anthropology - which is similar to what most people understand as sociology. In other words, my educational focus is actually ON this subject (rather, the philosophical and cultural side of it). Does this make me more qualified than you, a "close contact with the University of Washington School of Business", to speak on the needs of society? I'd say so. And, judging by your reasoning for dismissing the words of Kolasinski, you would have to agree. But, obviously, you can't admit this and will have to backpedal the hell out of that ditch. So, rather than waiting for yet another redundant/irrelevant response from you, I will restate the quote, and this time, request an actual argument contesting it:

I am a lawyer, with a focus on child welfare. Like I mentioned before. I have very much seen first hadn how couples with mad conception skills can severely hurt the economy. Because of this, I see that even amongst childbreaing, conception is but a need, not a focus or a thing to be lauded. I know numerous homosexuals who would make better parents than most of the heterosexuals that came through the system. This is why I debate your 'cenception is everything' approach to marriage. Conception is not everything. It is very small and the least important part of actually rasing a child.


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.

They can adopt. They can concieve outside of the relationship. Heterosexuals do not need marriage to concieve. So if marriage isn;t about creating a child, what else can it be about? Perhas raising a child? As homosexuals can get children, and make family units including children, they deserve the benefits of marriage that are intended to assist a parent in creating the most productive and useful child for the country and economy.

What contribution would homosexual marriages offer to the community that heterosexual couples would be excluded from - thus, justifying no changes to the benefit program primarily intended to encourage population growth?

Wait, what? Why would homosexuals need to do something extra? Anyway, you have yet to show which benefits are solely connected with conception within the marriage. I have shown that marriage has a very different population growth goal. Not to produce as much Americans as possible, but to produce the best quality of Americans possible, and homosexuals can do that just as well as any straight couple can.

If none, the institution of marriage becomes convoluted upon the introduction of gays, and must be dismantled and subsequently reorganized with a different foundation and specific, universal function.

WHy, just because homosexuals cannot concieve within the marriage? So, I AGAIN ask you, how does allowing infertile couples who cannot concieve at all NOT bastardize marriage? At least fertile homosexual couples can still concieve.

By what standard? Also, I have already suggested adoption benefits for a gay institution.

Those are already contained within the institution of marriage.

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.

Aside from the ability to concieve within the marriage and what to call each spouse, how is it any different to accomodate homosexual 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.

You read into such things all the wrong way. the Supreme Court likes to tip toe around big decisions for numerous reasons. They dont like the Roe v. Wade type backlash. They don't like making hard decisions. Most of all, they don't like legislating. So they will spew out loads of complete crap just to avoid from actually taking a stand on the issue.


As I have said in nearly every single response: institutions, by definition, cannot be discriminatory unless they delegate certain rights to members within the system. "N*s" and "F*gs" are not institutions. Moreover, you cannot compare two institutions together and claim one is discriminatory against the other because it serves a function that certain people can't apply for.

The right to be respected by your own government?

If theres just one response I want out of this, it is an answer to the question of which specific benefits would not apply to a homosexual couple because they cannot concieve within the marriage.

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 23:25:06 Reply

At 3/29/13 09:30 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: Personally, I agree. I don't think marriage should have anything to do with the state.

What about all of the spousal rights? How would we apply those and make sure they only apply to the right people? What about property issues? What about estate issues? What about tax issues? What about health insurance issues? What about liability issues?

There's a great deal of law that we take for granted that is rooted in state marriage. What should we do with all of that?

Light
Light
  • Member since: May. 29, 2006
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Reader
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-03-29 23:54:51 Reply

I like how Cynical-Charlotte refused to answer or even acknowledge the question I asked earlier in this thread.


I was formerly known as "Jedi-Master."

"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."--Dr. Seuss

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 23:56:22 Reply

At 3/29/13 09:30 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: Personally, I agree. I don't think marriage should have anything to do with the state.

That would be great, and in spirit, I agree, except for that little niggling problem of resolving legal issues. I also have a strong belief in the fact that families should get tax benefits, as part of a greater encouragement by the state of stability and community, both of which have positive social and economic benefits.

Your problem is threefold:

1st: you assume that the only reason for marriage benefit is for the production of the next generation for the purposes of economic expansion. This is demonstrably false.

2nd: you discount cost benefits of stable families beyond the addition of individuals into the workforce.

3rd: you ignore the fact that there are already more children than there are stable families that can/are able to care for them.

You sound like a relatively intelligent person attempting to rationalize yourself out of the cognitive dissonance created by the collision of your upbringing with the real world. You're beginning to realize that there is a little more nuance than your parents might have indicated. You're not quite there yet, but you've only scratched the surface. The depth of complexity and nuance in a question of such import is astounding, and I expect you're close to having enough experience to appreciate it. My bet is that in a couple years, you'll be posting a pink = on your facebook (or whatever similar meme happens to pop up then).


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

AlexNOSAM
AlexNOSAM
  • Member since: Mar. 29, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-03-30 01:41:01 Reply

Oh god... you just had to open it with the "when I was young and stupid I took on my parents' ideas and believes but later I became educated on my own and I have my own cool and original point of view" argument. It's so lame...
Listen, just because the society tells you something is okay doesn't make it so. The society can be corrupt. So your polls worth nothing except for telling us about public opinion. That doesn't make it right, the great masses can be wrong. Don't you think when we look back at history that there were periods in which the majority of people held believes that we know to be wrong today but back then you could be executed for? That's how much I think about your polls of the sheeple's opinion.
It does make me sad though that the youth are affected so much by the liberal indoctrination running wild these days. I presume you're not very old yourself so you probably ate it yourself like a good girl and said "yummy". It's a phenomenon in the whole western world - that the mainstream media and academy are dominated by the left. Anything other than liberalism and progressivism are labeled as racism and bigotry in the academy and media.
Now, that we're over with public opinion and how "honest" and "truthful" it can be to the topic of gay "marriage". I won't make it long. The thing is what you define marriage as. IMO and other true conservatives, marriage is a contract of bond made by a man and a woman. So bottom line is - there just can't be gay marriage because it is no "marriage". Gay couples can't have children together in a natural way and nature tries to tell us that only masculine and feminine can make a family together. No matter what arguments some smartass people make around it. It's as simple as that, homosexuality is an exception in nature and there is no reason why we should redefine marriage because of it.

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-03-30 03:46:15 Reply

At 3/29/13 09:08 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: I'm not necessarily denying reality and claiming that SSM will never happen. Because, when it does, I feel that my arguments will have more sustenance and actual birth statistics to justify a reorganization of benefits. Currently, the benefits do not apply to gay couples - so the benefits were not conceived to apply to gay couples. Of course it is possible to now say which ones will apply (most of them), but this is because we are discussing human beings.

Okay, I think I get it now. So, you're saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) that because marriage has been defined between a man and a woman, the benefits from joining the institution of marriage as a homosexual couple was never part of the original design. Thus, a redefinition of the institution is required or having the government out of the institution altogether.

Well, the definition of marriage has changed numerous times so I don't see what the problem here is. For example, arranged marriages is no longer a widely practiced custom in Western society, bigamy/polygamy is illegal in all of North America (misdemeanor and felony respectively). Dowries aren't a thing anymore, women aren't the property of a father to be traded to an arranged husband for economic purposes, etc. A more modern and relevant example is Loving vs. Virginia previously mentioned. Extending the institution to homosexuals is a trivial change to the law with non-trivial implications, I will admit. (Note: I'm not a lawyer, just a layman. Feel free to eat me alive, Camaro.)

My point is that upon the introduction of SSM, the benefits will become extremely costly and a damaging weight for future generations who lack the numbers to make up for the difference made.

I'm not buying it. What were the negative economic impacts when miscegenation laws were nullified? If you don't think the comparison is apt then demonstrate to me why, and give me a number, any number you think is right, that quantifies the negative economic impact in terms of how much it will cost the government and future generations. I've already shown everyone here the non-trivial amount of money put into State economies where SSM is permissible as one specific example, and Camarohusky has further reinforced that point with much broader examples.

I have seen your link to Adam Kolasinski's article and I took the time to read it. I know you prefaced your citation with the fact that you don't fully agree with his position but for the purpose of the discussion and for the sake of rebutting your source I can't just respond to the relevant bits you chose to post, as those words don't exist in a vacuum. I have to consider the full picture here, so I hope you understand why I'll be responding to material of his you didn't necessarily intend to bring to the discussion. Otherwise, it would be impossible for me to demonstrate his dishonesty and bias on the subject, which is why I think your source isn't adequate to satiate the much desired elaboration with respect to the topic of the cost of allowing SSM.

He starts off with the claim that recognition of marriage is not a fundamental right. For starters, marriage itself need not be the "universal right" as much as the conditions included in protecting the marriage contract with the state if it's going to be a part of the institution. Courts have the ability to say that having one kind of couple being discriminated against in law represents an unacceptable contravention of their rights. Loving says you can't restrict the marriage right on racial lines because that violates equal protection, but there's no fundamental right of marriage extended to same-sex couples; however, the legal basis it found for extending equal protection to interracial marriage applies precisely as well to same-sex marriage. The fact that SCOTUS is essentially hesitant to rule otherwise is illustrative only of the nature of the prejudice, not the underlying points made by Loving. Marriage already is considered a civil right in this country so the burden is on the state to provide a compelling reason to deny that right to same sex couple. His comparison between SSM and incestuous marriage are laughable, as there is ample amount of evidence that there is harm in doing so via the effects of inbreeding. Although he attempts to clarify his position later in the next paragraph to demonstrate regulation, the comparison is moot to begin with and his clarification only serves to add more empty words.

He then goes on to describe the costs in terms of the state in individuals via tax exemptions etc. I find it antiquated and irrelevant, and the subject has already been discussed in depth, but here's a recap: modern marriage in this country has not been a religious institution for quite some time, but rather a government institution. The "subsidies" both you and Adam talk about arrived from the ideology that the family is the fundamental unit of society at the time of their conception. The marriage benefits were originally thought to be incentives which would sustain what was deemed to be basic elements of American society, which is what I presume is what you were trying to say when you referred to the "American race" so I understand what you meant by that now. This is also how tax breaks for churches came about -- from the government working with religious institutions to support a culture. Increased secularization has ultimately changed this and will continue to do this. The effects of this have been, but is not limited to, the reduction in the role religion serves in marriage as an institution. We just had a massive budget fight. Did you once hear anyone talk about the massive damper on our economy from the lack of revenue from churches? Did anyone ever once come out in favor of slashing marriage benefits to help balance the budget? No of course not, because those are costs that are not only minuscule compared to the military budget for example, but because we as a society have been okay with paying it with our taxes (minus the libertarians of course). This is what the issue is about, it has to be. If cost really was the issue then there would be a clearly outlined cost with an actual concrete figure in each of your posts, not thought experiments that bear no semblance to the issue at hand here. There is no real and present danger to the country's balance sheet or taxpayers here, this is an invented red herring to skirt around the actual thing being debated here: a change in the way we see the traditional family unit.

Now we get to the part you quoted, which is the most absurd section in the article. First off, it's absolutely irrelevant whether or not homosexuals relationships serve any interest to the state. It is the state that exists to support individuals, not the other way around. The state is the enforcer of the society's system. No individual has this function. Again, this is what the debate is about, not the cost. Society has no problem paying for something they support. Secondly, the state does not grant rights. No level of government grants rights. You have rights by virtue of being human. The constitution is there to give you legal protection of those rights, to prevent government from infringing upon your natural rights, and these rights are considered self evident as stated in the DoI. Lastly, possibly the most absurd of all, is the notion that SSM advocates have the burden to prove what interest the state has in gay marriage. Consider how absurd of a notion this is -- this effectively implies that any level of government should have the ability to withhold rights to citizens until said citizens return something of equal or greater value back to the government. This is not how the law works and it's frankly insane how you can read that and say "yeah I can agree with this." That all being said and done, Kolasinski offers nothing new that this topic hasn't already covered or has no interest in covering thus far, so I think I'll end it there as far as his article is concerned for now.

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-03-30 03:49:45 Reply

At 3/29/13 09:08 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: Oh, I don't mean to say that the loss of benefits will be inevitable - I am saying it should be inevitable to offset the loss of products. Sure, with the concept of IVF, gay couples would able to "reproduce." But, marriage would be unrelated to procreation and I doubt most couples will consider this.

The government is not run like a business so there is no need to offset the "loss of products" (which I still don't know what you mean by) unless the cost is measured in tens of billions. Who cares whether or not marriage would be unrelated to procreation even if that were true? Again, this is an antiquated definition invented by the government in conjunction with the church to promote a culture and has been losing relevancy rapidly. SSM is an inevitable result of this process as secularization increases. Besides, IVF functionally serves the same purpose, only the mechanics are different.

What is the gay community's goal if it is not to receive marital benefits? They want the word? Because, that would be a really stupid reason, in my honest opinion.

The long term goal is normalizing & acceptance of homosexuals in our society. Marriage is just one part of that process, benefits are yet another. They're not in this for lower taxes, if that's what you're implying.

The cost will increase because it assumes the return (a future workforce) is at the same ratio. The institution currently operates under the idea that a new generation will be born from the members. Introducing gays will not increase the probability for a larger population, yet the costs increase as if it will because marriage would be identical to present-day.

I admit that I'm completely lost here. Governments need new people to be born so they can have money for pensions in the future for the current generations, provide a future workforce, have extra people to tax, ensure economic stability and growth, etc. Having a good fresh pool of kids smooths out a lot of curves, so providing an incentive for their existence is saving them a lot of brow sweat. That's what the child tax break is for. So I don't see why you'd make the claim that "introducing gays will not increase the probability for a larger population." Inevitably, yes, they do contribute in some part via IVF/adoption. But that's not even the larger point to make -- the larger point is that there's no guarantee that population will grow at a constant healthy rate, with or without SSM. Go have a look at Japan.

In an investment model, this is equivalent to purchasing stock A and stock B at the same price, while stock B offers a negative return rate. Repeating this process inevitably results in loss in revenue - unless, stock A is able to make up the difference. But, even then, purchasing stock B (if you must purchase it at all) for the same price as stock A is hardly optimal.

Macroeconomic analogies to macroeconomic topics never make any sense because you're dealing with a completely different set of rules. You don't use the same methods to control the economy of a nation as you do to manage your portfolio. Even if this results in a negative return, who cares? Let it contribute to the deficit and let economic policy work it out. A surging economy will increase tax revenue, which lowers the deficit without the need for a tax hike. All of this is hypothetical and likely doesn't matter anyway, because there is an endless supply of sources I can cite that show how SSM will likely be a net benefit for the economy or revenue neutral. Consider this: non married gay couples are still citizens and are subjected to taxes. They are forced to subsidize straight marriages just like all tax payers. You'd have to demonstrate the differences once we shift the burden to the broader tax base. Of course it's positive, because now all married couples effectively have a tax break and thus more money to spend. Not only does this make it easier to afford the essentials for raising a child, but they will likely also have more spendable money on luxuries like vacations etc. I believe this cuts into the next paragraph.

Certainly not! I am the youngest, and most naive here!

No need to be so humble.

True, which is why the institution needs to be redefined with them. And after a few years, statistics can be used for both sides since we're speaking about the future.

I do not think that is necessary since all that is required is a minor legal change. How would you personally redefine marriage to include SSM as an equal, not separate, institution? We'll start from there.

Elfer
Elfer
  • Member since: Jan. 21, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 38
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-03-30 09:45:03 Reply

At 3/29/13 09:30 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: Personally, I agree. I don't think marriage should have anything to do with the state.

If marriage doesn't have anything to do with the state, then it's a non-issue. Marriage is whatever a community believes it to be. The only reason that same-sex marriages are an issue is because marriages are recognized as such by the government, so we've gotten the legal and the religious aspects all tangled up because the state insists on using the word "marriage" to describe such unions.

On top of that, continued state involvement is just a vestige of a time when it was necessary. Our society has evolved so far beyond the need for the government to have a single enforced definition of marriage that it's nonsense to continue. It's simply become a property-sharing contract where a third party can change the conditions without the consent of either signing party.

Light
Light
  • Member since: May. 29, 2006
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Reader
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-03-31 17:53:55 Reply

At 3/30/13 01:41 AM, AlexNOSAM wrote:
Now, that we're over with public opinion and how "honest" and "truthful" it can be to the topic of gay "marriage". I won't make it long. The thing is what you define marriage as. IMO and other true conservatives, marriage is a contract of bond made by a man and a woman. So bottom line is - there just can't be gay marriage because it is no "marriage".

But you just said that marriage is what it is defined to be, so if we redefine marriage appropriately, gay marriage can exist.

Gay couples can't have children together in a natural way and nature tries to tell us that only masculine and feminine can make a family together.

Just because something isn't natural or isn't perceived to be natural doesn't mean it's wrong. This is an example of the naturalistic fallacy.

And as many others have argued in this thread, marriage isn't solely about having kids, and heterosexual couples who don't intend to have kids are still allowed to marry. Why not extend this right to homosexuals?

No matter what arguments some smartass people make around it. It's as simple as that, homosexuality is an exception in nature

Homosexuality isn't some sort of rare "exception." It has been commonly observed in hundreds of animal species.

and there is no reason why we should redefine marriage because of it.

What about equality and fairness?


I was formerly known as "Jedi-Master."

"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."--Dr. Seuss

BBS Signature
AlexNOSAM
AlexNOSAM
  • Member since: Mar. 29, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-04-01 10:35:55 Reply

At 3/31/13 05:53 PM, Light wrote: But you just said that marriage is what it is defined to be, so if we redefine marriage appropriately, gay marriage can exist.
Just because something isn't natural or isn't perceived to be natural doesn't mean it's wrong. This is an example of the naturalistic fallacy.

There is no such thing as "naturalistic fallacy" because there is no fallacy involved. Had you've read yourself the article you linked here you'd see that it's controversial because the 'fallacy' one supposedly says exist is false only because of the accusing party's personal opinion. That's not a real logical failure it's more of a wild accusation.

And as many others have argued in this thread, marriage isn't solely about having kids, and heterosexual couples who don't intend to have kids are still allowed to marry. Why not extend this right to homosexuals?

Because it's discrimination against children. The rights of children > the right to have children. Children deserve to have a mother and a father not just emotionally but psychologically - for their brains to develop properly. Children that were born from sperm donation and never knew their father nor had an influence of an adult man in their personal lives have various psychological issues. Same is with gay couples.

Homosexuality isn't some sort of rare "exception." It has been commonly observed in hundreds of animal species.

It is an exception because it occurs in about 10% of the individuals in a given specie. Don't try to fool me with facts about nature because I'm an engineer I probably know more than you about those things. I know that homosexuality exists in other species but it's still an exception no matter how you look at it. 90% still significantly bigger than 10%.

What about equality and fairness?

They're equal to me. Lesbians can marry men and gays can marry women. They want extra rights for themselves - of course they'll claim that legally I'll have those 'great' rights too so it's okay but it's not.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-04-01 11:45:28 Reply

At 4/1/13 10:35 AM, AlexNOSAM wrote: There is no such thing as "naturalistic fallacy" because there is no fallacy involved.

You misundertand the term natural fallacy. It does not mean that what your claim the something is unnatural is false. It means that the notion that so mething unnatural being automatically bad is false. It may be bad, but then again, it may be good (see: Air Conditioning, automobiles, human flight, and practically every other invention since 1850)

Because it's discrimination against children. The rights of children > the right to have children. Children deserve to have a mother and a father not just emotionally but psychologically - for their brains to develop properly. Children that were born from sperm donation and never knew their father nor had an influence of an adult man in their personal lives have various psychological issues. Same is with gay couples.

This has never been true, and in fact I beleive there have been several studies that showed this to be 100% false.

I'm an engineer

Would you trust your doctor to design a computer ship? Would you trust your lawyer to do heart surgery? Then why does your skill in engineering give you any extra credibility in biology?

90% still significantly bigger than 10%.

Is red hair an exception? Is height bove 6'2" an exception? Not all things that occur in small percentages are exceptions.

They're equal to me. Lesbians can marry men and gays can marry women. They want extra rights for themselves - of course they'll claim that legally I'll have those 'great' rights too so it's okay but it's not.

What if the rules were switched? What if you couldn't marry your girlfriend? Would it be an extra right to marry your girlfriend when you could marry another man and she could marry another woman just fine?

Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-04-01 17:49:01 Reply

At 3/30/13 03:46 AM, Feoric wrote: Okay, I think I get it now. So, you're saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) that because marriage has been defined between a man and a woman, the benefits from joining the institution of marriage as a homosexual couple was never part of the original design. Thus, a redefinition of the institution is required or having the government out of the institution altogether.... Well, the definition of marriage has changed numerous times so I don't see what the problem here is.

It isn't simply a redefinition, it is the undermining of a government program. Polygamy, "interracial" marriages, and arranged marriage all still operate within the intended function of the institution (population increase). SSM, however, is a change which does not. All of these have their respective supporting/opposing arguments which may (have) result(ed) in a redefinition of "marriage." SSM is unique in that it lacks an equivalent return to the state. Its introduction opens the possibility for further alterations to the institution itself. I argue that SSM demands its own government program (open to heterosexual couples as well) - the purpose consisting of the arguments in favor of SSM.

He starts off with the claim that recognition of marriage is not a fundamental right. For starters, marriage itself need not be the "universal right" as much as the conditions included in protecting the marriage contract with the state if it's going to be a part of the institution. Courts have the ability to say that having one kind of couple being discriminated against in law represents an unacceptable contravention of their rights.

Agreed. But, "couple" means two individuals who meet the application requirements for the institution. So yes, declining this couple positive rights given to other applicable couples is discrimination.

however, the legal basis it found for extending equal protection to interracial marriage applies precisely as well to same-sex marriage.

It does not apply to SSM because SSM does not meet the requirements to apply for the institution. It is similar to the difference between denying an able-bodied African American from joining the military and denying a handicapped African American. One (the Loving example) is clear discrimination because the applicant meets the universal requirements set in place. The other (preverbal denial of SSM) is not discrimination because the applicant does not meet the universal requirements set in place.

Changing the institution to to apply to gay couples would then make denial of SSM discriminatory. Rejecting unfit candidates is not akin to rejecting fit candidates who are unappealing.

The "subsidies" both you and Adam talk about arrived from the ideology that the family is the fundamental unit of society at the time of their conception. The marriage benefits were originally thought to be incentives which would sustain what was deemed to be basic elements of American society, which is what I presume is what you were trying to say when you referred to the "American race" so I understand what you meant by that now.

How is this ideology antiquated? I, and countless sociologists still see a great necessity to strengthen the American family unit because it is the primary emotional, psychological, physical, and perhaps spiritual resource for any future citizen. It has been long observed that children who grow up in the traditional household are more likely to become confident, responsible, contributing members of society. By contrast, children who do not grow up in a traditional home are more likely to be socially impaired, anxious, depressed, irresponsible, and even less intelligent. A young human being requires the mother and father - as proven by recorded history, let alone evolutionary studies and simply observance of nature. The fact that Biblical followers support this vehemently does not make it incorrect or even outdated.

In psychologic and anthropologic studies, this observation is hardly revolutionary. The standard marriage structure is key to ensuring the development of children. Without it, the next generation becomes statistically poor, inefficient, and reckless - plus, they pass these hinderances onto future generations. I, personally, cannot see how any amount of monetary revenue can account for the decline of American society at its foundation. If a figure absolutely must be given to prove the product of traditional marriage, one would simply need to Google "Economy in the United States of America."

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

First off, it's absolutely irrelevant whether or not homosexuals relationships serve any interest to the state.

State institutions are designed to perform certain functions in order to better the community as a whole. Otherwise, they would be wasteful spending, and placed on the conservative chopping block daily. Marriage is government-sponsored only because it benefits the state - otherwise, it would still be a pure religious practice and these arguments would be moot.

Secondly, the state does not grant rights. No level of government grants rights. You have rights by virtue of being human.

An infringement upon a gay couple's right to have sexual relations or relationship would be an infringement upon a negative right or freedom. The government is not doing this. Marriage is not a negative right which is acquired from birth. It is a positive right, privilege, and institution which by its very definition cannot be discriminatory to applicants who do not meet the universal requirements.

Being "more passionate" and upset about an institution does not make it unconstitutional or obtrusive upon human rights.

Lastly, possibly the most absurd of all, is the notion that SSM advocates have the burden to prove what interest the state has in gay marriage. Consider how absurd of a notion this is -- this effectively implies that any level of government should have the ability to withhold rights to citizens until said citizens return something of equal or greater value back to the government.

It sounds absurd because SSM advocates are demanding an aid program on the basis of "human rights" which cannot apply to this topic. Institutions are meant to serve a purpose to the state. SSM does not serve a viable purpose beyond taking money from taxpayers so gays can call their relationship something more sentiment.

The U.S. Marines won't accept people without arms and legs just so they can say they are marines. Even if the USM were to enlist a handicap, what makes you think the act of denying him the same status as fully able marines constitutes discrimination? Handicaps cannot serve the same function to the Marines as a soldier. In the same way, gay couples cannot serve the same function to the state as married couples.

I understand that people think this is a rights issue. But, I have yet to hear an argument which would definitively indicate this. The lack of one is the reason the Supreme Court is tackling the issue.

A Different Spin On Gay 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 2013-04-01 18:09:45 Reply

At 3/30/13 03:49 AM, Feoric wrote:
At 3/29/13 09:08 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: What is the gay community's goal if it is not to receive marital benefits? They want the word? Because, that would be a really stupid reason, in my honest opinion.
The long term goal is normalizing & acceptance of homosexuals in our society.

So if everyone accepts gays for "being gay," then there's no need for the marriage title. If perverting an institution and timeless philosophy is meant to be a step towards this goal, it certainly isn't one which is dependent upon such a damaging endeavor. Three-quarters of the country is at least indifferent to gay couples - so, mission accomplished.

They're not in this for lower taxes, if that's what you're implying.

I would rather the focus was on the benefits actually, because it otherwise demonstrates how blind the gay community has become from their misplaced passion.

Inevitably, yes, they do contribute in some part via IVF/adoption. But that's not even the larger point to make -- the larger point is that there's no guarantee that population will grow at a constant healthy rate, with or without SSM. Go have a look at Japan.

It isn't population growth alone, but societal growth. The larger point of the conservative argument is that traditional marriage is ideal even for heterosexual relationships. One who is against SSM should also be encouraging men and women to get married in order to better the chances of their child's development - which has been proven repeatedly.

I do not think that is necessary since all that is required is a minor legal change. How would you personally redefine marriage to include SSM as an equal, not separate, institution? We'll start from there.

I would redefine marriage to be a title for two people who wish to publicly proclaim their love. Perhaps we would give benefits for adoptions. From there, I would want the limit on the number of people in love to be stripped. Then, I would want a less stigmatized definition of love - since it's an emotion after all - and argue for anyone capable of feeling love. Then, I would continue to challenge it on the basis of animals showing love towards and/by attempting to mate with humans.

All of these, of course, would be arguments founded on the idea of discrimination - because it certainly applies to each. Should the Court vote in favor of SSM, you will probably see a new topic based on all of these. And, I will have sources for every example.


"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 2013-04-01 19:40:25 Reply

I am still waiting to hear exactly which marriage benefits apply to heterosexul couples but do not apply to homosexual couples.

I am also waiting to hear how the topic of quantity versus quality is addressed. Also, on that point I would really like to hear how a child who is adopted by a homosexual couple deserves less government aid as one born into or adopted by a heterosexual couple. Also, I would like to know how a heterosexual couple who is infertile, elderly, or unwilling to have children prvoides benefits for the government and exatly how it differes from homosexual marriage.

Serious holes in this argument that haven't yet been filled. (nor has such an attempt been made to fill them)

Migel
Migel
  • Member since: Nov. 11, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 20
Movie Buff
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-04-01 21:34:54 Reply

I think the topic in itself is a very clever and controversial form of an april fools joke. With the classic picture of a female icon from the days with this type of thought process.
At least that is what I hope, because my country was the first who introduced ssm as a law in the world. And it's painfull to read a discussion that's so regressive in contrast.

Look the problem with ssm is that there is no problem. Countries that have implemented this, show that the institution of marriage can be tempered with without having direct effects on society. This could have to do with the adaptability of our species to altering situations, but could also indicate a more scaring truth in which marriage is nothing more than a ideal. And that our perception of it's value differs significantly from the actual value it has in reality.
Which is not hard to believe if you research human kind and the power of tradition.

Light
Light
  • Member since: May. 29, 2006
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Reader
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-04-02 03:47:26 Reply

At 4/1/13 10:35 AM, AlexNOSAM wrote:
At 3/31/13 05:53 PM, Light wrote: But you just said that marriage is what it is defined to be, so if we redefine marriage appropriately, gay marriage can exist.
Just because something isn't natural or isn't perceived to be natural doesn't mean it's wrong. This is an example of the naturalistic fallacy.
There is no such thing as "naturalistic fallacy" because there is no fallacy involved.

Yes, there is a fallacy involved.

Something that is natural is not necessarily good. Something that is unnatural isn't necessarily wrong. It's that simple.

Had you've read yourself the article you linked here you'd see that it's controversial because the 'fallacy' one supposedly says exist is false only because of the accusing party's personal opinion. That's not a real logical failure it's more of a wild accusation.

I read that.

The logical evidence that the natural fallacy is indeed a fallacy is stronger than the evidence that it isn't.

And as many others have argued in this thread, marriage isn't solely about having kids, and heterosexual couples who don't intend to have kids are still allowed to marry. Why not extend this right to homosexuals?
Because it's discrimination against children. The rights of children > the right to have children.

lol

Children deserve to have a mother and a father not just emotionally but psychologically - for their brains to develop properly.

No empirical evidence exists that shows that children need a mother and father to properly develop in an emotional and psychological sense, just that they need two or more stable parental figures in their lives.

Children that were born from sperm donation and never knew their father nor had an influence of an adult man in their personal lives have various psychological issues.

Got any evidence to back that assertion up?

Same is with gay couples.

Again, got any evidence to back that assertion up?

Homosexuality isn't some sort of rare "exception." It has been commonly observed in hundreds of animal species.
It is an exception because it occurs in about 10% of the individuals in a given specie. Don't try to fool me with facts about nature because I'm an engineer I probably know more than you about those things.

lmao, you crack me up. I don't care if you're an engineer, and neither does anyone else. What I do care about is the strength of your argument. Your argument has little of that, my friend.

And when exactly does it cease to be an exception? 15% 45% 60%? The point is that homosexuality is a widely observed trait.

And how am I trying to "fool you with "facts"? That makes no sense.

I know that homosexuality exists in other species but it's still an exception no matter how you look at it. 90% still significantly bigger than 10%.
What about equality and fairness?
They're equal to me. Lesbians can marry men and gays can marry women.

You know damn well that that isn't equal.

They want extra rights for themselves - of course they'll claim that legally I'll have those 'great' rights too so it's okay but it's not.

What are you even talking about?


I was formerly known as "Jedi-Master."

"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."--Dr. Seuss

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 2013-04-02 05:21:12 Reply

At 4/1/13 07:40 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I am still waiting to hear exactly which marriage benefits apply to heterosexul couples but do not apply to homosexual couples.

All of them, considering the institution does not presently recognize gays.

Also, I would like to know how a heterosexual couple who is infertile, elderly, or unwilling to have children prvoides benefits for the government and exatly how it differes from homosexual marriage.

Barring certain heterosexual couples from the institution is discriminatory and discouraging for the institution.

(nor has such an attempt been made to fill them)

You're right. I could not care less about this topic - which is why I have consistently posted in it for several days.


"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 2013-04-02 11:58:06 Reply

At 4/2/13 05:21 AM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: All of them, considering the institution does not presently recognize gays.

Haha, very funny... Which benefits would apply to heterosexual couples that concieve within the marriage that could not apply to homosexuals if they were granted marraige?

Barring certain heterosexual couples from the institution is discriminatory and discouraging for the institution.

Discriminatory against who? Single people? My ass. They have the opportunity to get married. Choosing to not get married doesn't make benefits for marriage discriminatory, so long as people all have the option to marry as they wish. (between consenting adults who can legally enter into such a contract)

You're right. I could not care less about this topic - which is why I have consistently posted in it for several days.

Not the indication at all (weren't you earlier talking about listening?). You have actively avoided answering the tough questions.

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-04-02 15:40:17 Reply

At 4/1/13 05:49 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: It isn't simply a redefinition, it is the undermining of a government program.

No it isn't, why do you think this? It's an expansion of a standardized contract to people who previously couldn't enter it. It's only undermined when you restrict it.

Polygamy, "interracial" marriages, and arranged marriage all still operate within the intended function of the institution (population increase).

Why do you keep repeating this? This has been demonstrated as false over and over again in this thread. The intended function was never population increase. You have had several people including myself explicitly explain this to you.

SSM, however, is a change which does not. All of these have their respective supporting/opposing arguments which may (have) result(ed) in a redefinition of "marriage."

If this really does change the meaning of marriage, then all it does is change the meaning back to the traditional meaning it had for 90% of human history, and the meaning it currently had/has for many cultures outside the Western world.

SSM is unique in that it lacks an equivalent return to the state.

Again, I keep asking for an elaboration on why this matters or any figure at all and you have not followed up on this request.

Its introduction opens the possibility for further alterations to the institution itself.

No, it won't. It can't. People are welcome to try, but it's not going any further than this. From a legal standpoint there really isn't anything from a gay marriage case that could be cited in a case for polygamy for example or any other type of marriage you can think of. Homosexuality isn't a choice and it (very arguably) meets all of the legal requirements for the designation of suspect class under the law. Choice really shouldn't be a factor anyway since religion is protected, but decades of propaganda from the religious right have made it a factor. With gay marriage you have a potential suspect class asking for rights that the government has no legitimate reason to deny. Poly relationships are a choice and without any real history of abuse or discrimination they would find it near impossible to obtain recognition as a suspect class in the courts. Gay marriage only requires a small tweak to existing law whereas poly marriage would require some pretty drastic changes to existing marriage law along with just about every government program as well as employee benefits. The resulting legal nightmare is probably enough of a compelling reason for the government to not recognize poly marriage. If poly marriage does become legal it won't be the result of any precedent set by gay marriage because they admittedly aren't comparable. Regardless of whether sexual orientation should or should not be read to qualify for strict scrutiny, and there is an excellent case for saying it should be, it remains true that you can have a constitutional middle ground, and the logical way to state that the constitution requires gay marriages does not open the floodgates for any sort of redefinition of marriage.

Agreed. But, "couple" means two individuals who meet the application requirements for the institution. So yes, declining this couple positive rights given to other applicable couples is discrimination.

The criteria for joining the institution is irrelevant if it is deemed as a violation of the Constitution, which is what the issue here is.

It does not apply to SSM because SSM does not meet the requirements to apply for the institution.

You're not actually saying anything here. Interracial marriage did not meet the requirements to apply for the institution nationwide before the ruling, either. What's your point?

It is similar to the difference between denying an able-bodied African American from joining the military and denying a handicapped African American. One (the Loving example) is clear discrimination because the applicant meets the universal requirements set in place. The other (preverbal denial of SSM) is not discrimination because the applicant does not meet the universal requirements set in place.

What universal requirements? There is absolutely no such thing as universal requirements for marriage. The whole point of me bringing up the Loving case is that being gay is not a choice, much like race. It's a characteristic beyond your control you are basically born with, and since gays are a group traditionally discriminated against, a higher standard of proof should be needed for laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

Changing the institution to to apply to gay couples would then make denial of SSM discriminatory. Rejecting unfit candidates is not akin to rejecting fit candidates who are unappealing.

The whole point of the argument is that homosexuals have not been properly demonstrated to be deemed as unfit.

How is this ideology antiquated? I, and countless sociologists still see a great necessity to strengthen the American family unit because it is the primary emotional, psychological, physical, and perhaps spiritual resource for any future citizen.

This isn't proven at all:

"Notwithstanding this study's specific features, its results are entirely consistent with prior research on planned lesbian-mother families (McCandlish, 1987; Patterson, 1994; Steckel, 1985, 1987). Like earlier research, results of this study are consistent with the conclusion that the children of lesbian and heterosexual parents are remarkably similar, specifically in the areas of intellectual functioning and behavioral adjustment. In each of these areas, no gender differences were found; scores for both boys and girls in the lesbian- and heterosexual-parent groups were extremely similar, and each group compared favorably with the standardization samples for the instruments used. Furthermore, of the 24 comparisons made between the children in the two groups, 17 actually favored the children of lesbian parents, a fact that diminishes the likelihood that differences were not found because of problems associated with small sample size. Rather, given the direction and magnitude of these results, it is more probable that the two groups of children and parents were comparable in the areas assessed.

Like their children, the two groups of parents evaluated in this study also revealed similarities. In the area of relationship quality, no differences were found between the groups, although the lesbian couples received higher scores in every area of dyadic adjustment. Moreover, both the lesbian and heterosexual couples were comparable in overall dyadic adjustment to the married couples in Spanier's (1976) normative sample, suggesting satisfactory relationship quality in both groups.

Only in the domain of parenting skills awareness were differences found between the two groups of couples. Analysis using the Parent Awareness Skills Survey revealed that the lesbian couples were more aware of the skills necessary for effective parenting than were their heterosexual counterparts. Specifically, the lesbian couples proved to be superior in their ability to identify the critical issues in child-care situations and to formulate appropriate solutions to the problems they noticed. With further analysis, however, it was revealed that these differences were related to the parents' gender rather than to their sexual orientation: Both heterosexual and lesbian mothers demonstrated an awareness of parenting skills that was superior to that of heterosexual fathers. Although this result may suggest that the heterosexual fathers were less capable in their ability to handle child-care problems, it may also represent a gender difference in their likelihood to verbalize their ideas about parenting. The later conclusion is supported by an examination of the actual responses of the participants on the parenting skills measure. The verbatim records of the fathers were substantially shorter than those of the three groups of mothers."

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-04-02 15:58:33 Reply

Now, I admit that the above posted studt only applies to a relatively small sector of the gay population (lesbian mothers who choose to give birth). However, you made the claim that "children who do not grow up in a traditional home are more likely to be socially impaired, anxious, depressed, irresponsible, and even less intelligent". As this study shows, this isn't the case in a lesbian household, so that statement is patenty false. That in no way rules out other gays, that's just the extent of this study. As far as I can tell this isn't so much of an issue that

At 4/1/13 05:49 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: State institutions are designed to perform certain functions in order to better the community as a whole. Otherwise, they would be wasteful spending, and placed on the conservative chopping block daily. Marriage is government-sponsored only because it benefits the state - otherwise, it would still be a pure religious practice and these arguments would be moot.

I don't think you understand the modus operandi of conservatives, especially the GOP. They just let the sequester happen which dramatically cuts beneficial programs which will negatively effect GDP growth. And again, you've completely disregarded the multiple sources provided to you which demonstrate how SSM is beneficial to the state and haven't explained to me why it matters if it doesn't. I have no interest in having a debate with someone if they're just going to run around in circles, and this is all this seems to be.

An infringement upon a gay couple's right to have sexual relations or relationship would be an infringement upon a negative right or freedom. The government is not doing this. Marriage is not a negative right which is acquired from birth. It is a positive right, privilege, and institution which by its very definition cannot be discriminatory to applicants who do not meet the universal requirements.

Benefits received by those who enjoy the privilege of marriage extend so far that they cannot be considered a privilege anymore. Who are we kidding saying it's a "privilege" anyway? Surely marriage is just an extension of both free expression and free association? Exactly what aspects of marriage do you think require "privileges" granted by the state? You can get this privilege with anybody you find on the street and blow through the ceremony in 10 minutes. Divorce rates are ridiculous, and people remarry constantly. What you do by recognizing gay marriage is increase the stability of homosexual relationships and decrease promiscuity among the general populace.

It sounds absurd because SSM advocates are demanding an aid program on the basis of "human rights" which cannot apply to this topic. Institutions are meant to serve a purpose to the state. SSM does not serve a viable purpose beyond taking money from taxpayers so gays can call their relationship something more sentiment.

The "state interest" that must be present, as defined by Supreme Court decisions, has always been a negative one: why the government should prevent a specific segment of society from partaking in an institution. You need a balancing state interest to demonstrate why the state should be excluding gays from marriage. This is what is at stake. Pray tell, what is the state's interest in keeping marriage solely between a man and a woman? Your unwillingness to pay a minuscule amount more in taxes to compensate for any losses that hypothetically would come about from gay marriage allows you to abridge their privileges, directly conflicting with the 14th amendment? I don't get it.

I understand that people think this is a rights issue. But, I have yet to hear an argument which would definitively indicate this. The lack of one is the reason the Supreme Court is tackling the issue.

This is EXACTLY the reason why the Supreme Court is tackling the issue, are you joking?

That picture you posted bears no relevancy to the topic because it does not address same sex households, but rather single parent ones. I'm not sure why you posted it.

I would rather the focus was on the benefits actually, because it otherwise demonstrates how blind the gay community has become from their misplaced passion.

I don't think you're qualified to pass such a judgement.

Elfer
Elfer
  • Member since: Jan. 21, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 38
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-04-03 18:08:06 Reply

At 4/2/13 05:21 AM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote:
At 4/1/13 07:40 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I am still waiting to hear exactly which marriage benefits apply to heterosexul couples but do not apply to homosexual couples.
All of them, considering the institution does not presently recognize gays.

Derp. Let's try this another way:

What benefits are granted to married heterosexual couples, but not unmarried heterosexual couples with children, that wouldn't provide equal benefit to the state/society were they provided to any two people in a committed relationship?

A lot of your arguments seem predicated on the idea that there's no such thing as an unmarried couple with children.