At 4/6/13 02:18 AM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote:
The payout is reduced.
I have yet to read anything which would indicate marriage is less than a program intended to maximize the number of responsible and productive citizens Ãf la procreation.
"Marriage was orginally a contract. It was a financial system of bringing two entities together into one financial being. It merely glommed onto the sexual relations as those are where strong common bonds between two families are most often created."
"The purpose of marriage, since the inception of the institution, has been the continuation of property rights and power. Marriage was and is a social contract dealing primarily with the rights of ownership and inheritance."
"Marriage is a property arrangement. Marriage is a custodial arrangement Marriage is an estate arrangement. Marriage is also a cluster of rights that merely apply to the spouses and have no bearing upon whether any children exist whatsoever."
"... the benefit of marriage comes from far more than simply growing the economy through increased numbers of humans. It solves extremely expensive property disputes before they being. It solves extremely expensive estate disputes before they begin. It streamlines the tax system thus saving money. It helps streamline custody disputes. Most importantly, it creates a stable arena through which a child, regardless of their birthparents' involvement or not, can grow and become a productive member of society."
"Marriage began as a property sharing and powerbroking institution among the wealthy. It spread down to the masses in a very different manner when people started coming together and wished to join as permanent partners. Child bearing was originally a mere beneficial byproduct of such an agreement. "
As I have said before, human endeavors are not "figures." The institution is not built on a numerical payout system, rather, the production and contribution of (responsible) human beings.
And, as I and other have said before, this is wrong. It's entirely a numbers thing.
SSM members are physically unable to meet the requirement necessary to be admitted to this particular government program.
Nonsense. Your entire argument is built on a false proposition. By this same logic neither are cases of sterility where it is permanent and completely 100% sure to prevent reproduction or surgical removal of the ovaries or various other critical chunks of anatomy which render a person totally unable to reproduce. You yourself already admitted that "marriage should be changed to fix this." Your argument based on procreation is bunk unless you apply that standard across the board to hetero couples and null their marriages unless they produce children.
I'm sure interracial marriage advocates thought similarly. Upon the legalization of SSM, how will marriage be defined?
IANAL, so I'm not the best person to ask. The legal language, I presume, would make it clear that marriage is between two consenting adults regardless of sexual orientation etc.
It absolutely is a choice considering it is always dependent upon voluntary actions.
You're confusing an act with a feeling. Committing homosexual acts is not what makes you gay. Your feelings inside and the attraction to the same sex is what makes you gay. I can choose what I do, but I cannot choose how I feel.
The argument that attraction is in any way indicative of a mythical "sexual orientation" is grounds for defending zoophilia and other harmful fetishes which would be recognized under a law/institution that defines an action as an attribute.
The notion that society will look at bestiality in the future with the enlightenment with which it is now starting to view homosexuality is just fucking bizarre. If a person has sex with an animal, it isn't a relationship, it's the person using the animal as an object to satisfy sexual desire. Chickens can't consent to sexual activity. Homosexuality, polygamy and bestiality are separate issues that are in no way analogous, and permitting one does not mean that you have to permit all.
All relationships are a choice. Are you somehow suggesting that by being attracted to the same sex, you are forced to be in a relationship with a member of it?
No, not at all. I'm saying the choice of being in a relationship and sexual attraction can be mutually exclusive. If being gay really was a choice, who on earth would choose it? Being denied the right to serve in the military, to marry the one you love, to adopt/raise children, being targeted as a pariah by society and religious figures...yeah, sounds like a great choice.
If not, people who wish to have polygamous relationships of any number should be allowed to do so upon SSM because they are attracted to more than one person (otherwise, it is discriminating between monogamy and polygamy).
The difference here is that polygamy does not have the "legal-rights" justification that people use to argue for homosexual marriage. The rights conferred by legal domestic partnerships would be pretty difficult to transfer over to a polygamous situation. Making the same argument for polygamy is difficult since marriages of those types would be entirely unregulatable. This is why you cannot extend the protection of homosexuals to polygamy:
1) Saying everyone is allowed to be married to one person grants everyone equal rights, without allowing polygamy.
2) A guy screwing another guy is currently legal. A guy married to two women is currently illegal.
Point being: There is no legal basis for your argument. The laws against polygamy do not conflict with any anti-discrimination laws. It is (or should be) illegal to discriminate against gays, and legal to discriminate against polygamists. Legalizing SSM requires overturning just a few laws that are already in conflict with case-law and constitutional amendments. Legalizing polygamy is a whole different animal. We are discriminating against bigamy, child molesting, statutory rapists, people who like bestiality, people who like to masturbate in public, necrophiliacs, and homosexuals. The primary difference being that there are no existing laws or portions of the Constitution which clearly support the other sexual preferences, but there are many that clearly support homosexual marriage being legal.
I thought legalities were no excuse for discrimination?
Nice try, but it's not discrimination. There's no legal argument for polygamy on a Constitutional basis or any of the slippery slope arguments you are making.
The government is not preventing gays from being in a relationship, it is refusing to extend a program. [...] Two individuals who hate each other are able to get married.
You don't have to be sexually active to be homosexual. Attraction is what determines sexuality. Gay people could abstain from sex and still be gay. It is the pairing that you are opposing, and I agree that the pairing is always a choice; however, if an individual white person is only attracted to black people, they don't have to "do" anything to be attracted to black people -- they simply are. Thankfully, no one is legislating against thought or feeling anymore in that regard. If that person wanted to be married to a black person, it certainly is an active decision and choice. Legislating against interracial marriage is unfairly prejudicial. Legislating against inter-religious marriage is unfairly prejudicial. Legislating against homosexual marriage is unfairly prejudicial. Attraction isn't some gigantic mystical thing that cannot be explained - it's often determined by simple stimuli and (to a lesser degree IMO), genetic predisposition (the keyword being predisposition, I'm not a proponent of the "gay gene" theory). The issue with homosexuality is that there is no logical reason to change who they are attracted to, especially since this can be a near impossible thing due to it being completely ingrained in some people's lives.