Be a Supporter!

A Different Spin On Gay Marriage

  • 4,129 Views
  • 140 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
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
  • Online!
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
  • Online!
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?

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.

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
  • Online!
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
  • Online!
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.

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
  • Online!
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.

Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-04-06 02:02:57 Reply

At 4/2/13 03:40 PM, Feoric wrote:
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?

The payout is reduced.

Polygamy, "interracial" marriages, and arranged marriage all still operate within the intended function of the institution (population increase).
Why do you keep repeating this?

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 à la procreation. The nuts and bolts of the institution which members in this topic have challenged - benefits received, numbers and races of people - do not change this.

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.

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. SSM members are physically unable to meet the requirement necessary to be admitted to this particular government program.

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.

I'm sure interracial marriage advocates thought similarly. Upon the legalization of SSM, how will marriage be defined?

Homosexuality isn't a choice...

It absolutely is a choice considering it is always dependent upon voluntary actions. 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.

Poly relationships are a choice...

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? 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).

Gay marriage only requires a small tweak to existing law whereas poly marriage would require some pretty drastic changes

I would consider changing the sexes allowed is equally drastic as changing the number allowed - or, at the very least, species. This is under the assumption that the idea of procreation is omitted and replaced with varying degrees of attraction. Unless science finds "the gay gene" before SSM is legalized, I cannot think of a function marriage would serve that could not be accomplished by multiple adults or even a single parent and a dog. Yet, even with a purely biological explanation for homosexuality, the inclusion of polygamy and bestiality is relatively simple to achieve with enough whining and discriminatory abuse. If enough people cry over kids killing themselves over their animal attraction, society will cater to them.

The resulting legal nightmare is probably enough of a compelling reason for the government to not recognize poly marriage.

I thought legalities were no excuse for discrimination? Why are polygamous relationships allowed to be demonized, but not homosexual ones? Surely not because they take more time to accommodate in the fine lines of marriage entitlement? After all, these are human rights we're talking about!

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.

I understand that, but it hasn't been deemed a violation yet.

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?

The requirements being procreation and effectively raising children. It doesn't matter who procreates and raises children, so long as they are able to. SSM alters the requirements, not the applicants alone.

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.
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.

Here's another example of mixing negative rights with positive ones. "Races" are not born with an attraction to other "races." It is obviously a decision to engage in an "interracial relationship." The infringement upon a couple's right to have a relationship is discrimination. Marriage, being a privilege and institution, does not fall under this category. Thus, interracial-marriage advocates fought for marriage on the grounds that black-white relationships are no different than white-white and applied for marriage without changing the institutional system itself.

The government is not preventing gays from being in a relationship, it is refusing to extend a program. "Gays" are not born with certain attractions in the same way "races" aren't. The issue comes down to decisions. It is 100% an adult's decision to have sexual relations (otherwise, it's rape). Attraction has absolutely nothing to do with marriage despite it being a highly common numerator. Two individuals who hate each other are able to get married.

Marriage is not contingent upon fetish because it (currently) serves a function. The omission of the primary function results in marriage becoming contingent upon fetish, and therefore, the marital discrimination of all taboo attractions must be solved by their inclusion regardless of difficulty and obscurity.

This is not an issue of choice, because the government could care less about your sexual urges.


"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 2013-04-06 02:18:11 Reply

At 4/2/13 03:58 PM, Feoric wrote: 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"

I suppose I will just have to unleash the statistics. Excluding the info. I provided in my previous response, here is an extension of evidence in favor of traditional marriage households. To clarify, these are not facts specifically against gay couples - they actually indicate that anything less than a healthy, traditional marriage is inferior (with regards to child development).

Coming From Fatherless Homes:
1. 63% youth who committed suicide
2. 69% child sexual abuse victims
3. 70% juvenile penitentiary population
4. 71% high school dropouts
5. 75% patients in drug abuse centers
6. 80% rapists with angered motivation (60% all)
7. 85% children with behavioral disorders
8. 85% youth in prison
9. 90% homeless children
10. 100% more likely to be incarcerated
11. 200% - 300% increased likelihood of emotional/behavior problems
12. 315% more likely to smoke as children
13. 111% increased likelihood of youth pregnancy
14. >1000% more likely to be violent in school

Statistics for motherless homes are scarce due to the rarity of single-father families in comparison. However, studies do show that with the inclusion of motherless homes, these percentages increase as much as 15% despite the fewer cases. But, this note is less relevant because traditionally, the father is the more influential in terms of behavioral development. Children who come from families other than married, mother-father homes have an increased risk for psychological problems including gender/sexuality confusion, depression, anxiety, stress, and more. Self-esteem takes a dramatic plunge, but becomes particularly damaged in girls. Lack of parents in a healthy marriage also lowers a child's IQ and SAT scores, on average not including general schooling performance as early as elementary grades.

If you will allow me to expand further, these statistics are not indicative of the numerical factor of a family unit. The fact that children are severely hindered by growing up in a single-parent family is not resolved simply by altering the number of parents. A child requires the mother and father in order to develop properly. Men and women are surely different in psychology and biology - why would this become irrelevant when raising more men and women? If, evolutionarily speaking, the sexes have developed so diversely to compliment having babies, then the diversity surely cannot be limited to sperm and egg. Males and females are wired differently, behave differently, and require more develop in different areas. Our psychology and hormones effectively allow man and woman to be the perfect parental structure.

I found it interesting that girls suffer from low self-esteem more so than boys do in female-led families. But, this hardly surprises me because we learn how to be treated by men by how our fathers treat us. Without fathers, we tend to be more socially awkward and lack the self-worth gained from a father. I would imagine boys who grow up without a father or mother do not learn how they should treat women - as indicated by the rape and sexual perversion continuing to infest our culture.

Sure, a kid adopted by a gay couple might appear to beat the odds and become a contributing member of society. There are orphans who have become extremely successful (ie: Herbert Hoover, George Washington Carver, Babe Ruth). Should we remove parenthood completely because these people were able to overcome childhood without ANY parent? Why not? Because, children need parental leadership and examples of remarkable exceptions is no excuse to ignore this fact. Children need a mother and father within close reach so that they learn how to treat and be treated. A father cannot provide in the same way a mother can, and vice-versa. Child-psychologists have proven this, let alone biologists and anthropologists. While similar, males and females are very different. If both sexes were not ideal, humans would reproduce asexually.

This ideology is, granted, archaic. Yet, if outdated, how has it withstood millenniums of generations? The male-female requirement is blatant in all aspects of biologic research and humanity is certainly no exception. We take longer to develop than any other organism on the planet. Why? Because, our brains are unbelievably complex. We have more attributes than animals - namely in psychology. Our children need the maximum amount of attention and care which can only be accomplished through the union of a male and female.

Marriage, then, is the encouragement of this philosophy and scientific observance. It is the government sponsorship of maximizing the effectiveness of child development. Going back to interracial marriage, the prohibition of marriage between blacks and whites was not founded on population increase and child development - rather, "race" alone. Blacks and whites are able to raise equally responsible contributors to society as any other âEUoeracialâEU combination. This is primarily backed by biology (there is no such thing as "race").

On the other hand, two men or two women are not able to raise children at the same level as a man and woman. This also is primarily backed by biology. A girl raised by two women as opposed to one acquires no significant learning on how men are meant to treat her in the household. She becomes no more self-confident around men, nor will she value herself as if she had a father. While these are not physical variables, the absence of a male figure certainly influences a girl's psychology. The major trait which separates humans from animals is our mind. If animals operate on a male-female basis when raising their young, how much more should humans?

Encouraging SSM is the discouragement of natural child development. Children who grow up in SSM households are not adequate because of their parental structure - they are adequate in spite of it. Moreover, the bar we set for them is rather low considering the abysmal job men and women are doing at raising children in this age. Lack of morals, commitment, and responsibility as resulted in the deterioration of society and Western culture. But, the mistakes of men an women surely do not justify the encouragement of more social problems. Plus, as I have shown with many statistics, a mother and father who are simply together have a dramatically greater chance at raising responsible and mature citizens.

Unfortunately, I do not see the American people suddenly becoming selfless and responsible in terms of future generations (as a result of sub-par parenting). The decay of morality can only get worse as more people operate on subjectivity and passion rather than objectivity and function.

Upon the legalization of SSM, marriage can no longer be described as a specific function other than raising children. And, "raising children" can be accomplished by any number of people, animals, even computers.

Sources:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/172210.pdf
http://www.nij.gov/journals/254/rape_reporting.html
http://www.gwu.edu/~pad/202/father.pdf
http://www.paternita.info/america/fatherless-america.pdf
http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/the-benefits-
of-a-long-childhood

Apologies in advance for any strange characters. The length of this post was better suited in a word document prior to copying and submitting.

"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 2013-04-06 02:38:57 Reply

At 4/2/13 03:58 PM, Feoric wrote: 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

It's unfortunate that the experiment was severely limited - as most "evaluations of the gay community" tend to be. Studies on same-sex households are often abnormally small in comparison to normal statistical assessments. When you expand the sample - thereby increasing mathematical reliability - this is what you find:

Compared to children of traditional homes, children of homosexual parents...
- Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
- Have lower educational attainment
- Report less safety and security in their family of origin
- Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
- Are more likely to suffer from depression
- Have been arrested more often
- If they are female, have had more sexual partners - both male and female
- Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
- Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
- Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
- Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
- Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting
- Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."
- Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will
- Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others
- Use marijuana more frequently
- Smoke more frequently
- Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense

It's quite obvious that a SSM home is inferior to the traditional one considering these are hardly all of the results to be found in similar studies.

Sources:
http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parent s-tops-all-previous-research
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12 000610
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12 000580


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

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-04-06 11:58:24 Reply

At 4/6/13 02:38 AM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: It's unfortunate that the experiment was severely limited - as most "evaluations of the gay community" tend to be. Studies on same-sex households are often abnormally small in comparison to normal statistical assessments. When you expand the sample - thereby increasing mathematical reliability - this is what you find:

Usually, I think better of UT-Austin, being a very good school and all, but this study... well, this study is just plain broken.

Look at the tables. They don't make an actual comparison. They compare intact biological families to children whose mother or father may at one time have had a gomosexual relationship. They're not comparing intact families to intact families. They're comparing intct families to a smooshing of both single parents and some long term relationships. AND with all the bitching about smaller sample sizes, they openly state that the percentage of the LM and GF categories who lived with their parent's homosexual partner for over three years is 23% for LM and 2% for GF. That isn;t bad until you look at their sample size for each group. 175 total people for LM, which isn't bad, but that means just 40 of them lived with their second mother for 3 years or more. For GFs it's 73 people, meaning that a whopping 1-2 people, based on which way they rounded, people whose second dad lived with the for 3 years or more.

In short they mashed these 42 people, whose families may or may not even still be intact into one category, but took great care to break up the heterosexual children into distinct categories based precisely on whether their family was intact and how it split. In other words, DON'T GO TO THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS FOR STATISTICAL ANALYSIS. If this study is an example of how they run their program, they'll screw your education and improperly teach you how to analyze statistics.

I'm not even looking at the FRC report, as they're so openly biased they'd look at one unhappy child of a gay family and say that all gay parents murder babies and rape our white women.

Now, you also forget two MAJOR factors here. Married heterosexual couples recieve marraige benefits for raising a child out the wazoo. They get tax breaks, can share health insurance, both parents can make legal decisions for the children, and so on. ALSO the stigma of being homosexual parent attaches to the child. Children can percieve stress and they notice when their parents get treated differently. If they constantly are seeing that their parents are treated worse by strangers, without being od enough to understand the whole sexuality issue, they may believe that there is something inherently wrong with themselves that causes their parents to be treated poorly.

While homosexual marriage won't be a panacea to blatant asshollery, it can at least cure that first issue and give homosexual parents the same leg up under the law that heterosexual parents can get.

Slightly separate note, Feoric and I are still waiting for you to show us exactly which marriage benefits would not, if same sex marriage were granted, be able to apply to homosexuals because they cannot concieve within the marriage. I am also waiting for you to tell us what the difference, for your reproduction first marriage, is between homosexuals and infertile heterosexuals, as neither can reproduce within the marriage.

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-04-06 15:51:22 Reply

At 4/6/13 02:18 AM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: The payout is reduced.

How?

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. "

Etc.

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.

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage 2013-04-06 15:57:51 Reply

This is not an issue of choice, because the government could care less about your sexual urges.

How many states have sodomy laws?

To clarify, these are not facts specifically against gay couples - they actually indicate that anything less than a healthy, traditional marriage is inferior (with regards to child development).

This isn't applicable, because they're strictly limited to single parent homes. Households with homosexual couples are not single parent households, so you can't logically apply this to "non-traditional" homes. This isn't a logical jump I'm going to take. I will say that I do agree that single parent households definitely correlate with the circumstances you provided. I just do not see how this can be broadly interpreted to include same sex households. That should be a completely different data set with a completely different methodology since there are two parents. I believe that a child growing up with a stable household is better than a child growing up in an unstable one. I would rather a child grow up in a stable/loving household with gay parents rather than an unstable heterosexual one, or a single-parent household. None of this addresses that point.

If you will allow me to expand further, these statistics are not indicative of the numerical factor of a family unit. The fact that children are severely hindered by growing up in a single-parent family is not resolved simply by altering the number of parents. [...] Our psychology and hormones effectively allow man and woman to be the perfect parental structure.

I've already provided a study that strikes this argument down. If that wasn't enough to satisfy you then okay, I understand. There is no shortage of material on the subject so I can provide you with more extensive studies. Here's an excellent source of material, I highly recommend it:

"The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers' and gay fathers' parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual couples. For instance, Flaks, Fischer, Masterpasqua, and Joseph (1995) reported that lesbian couples' parenting awareness skills were stronger than those of heterosexual couples. This was attributed to greater parenting awareness among lesbian nonbiological mothers than among heterosexual fathers. In one study, Brewaeys and her colleagues (1997) likewise reported more favorable patterns of parent-child interaction among lesbian as compared to heterosexual parents, but in another, they found greater similarities. A recent study of 256 lesbian and gay parent families found that,in contrast to patterns characterizing the majority of American parents, very few lesbian and gay parents reported any use of physical punishment (such as spanking) as a disciplinary technique; instead, they were likely to report use of positive techniques such as reasoning. Certainly, research has found no reasons to believe lesbian mothers or gay fathers to be unfit parents. On the contrary, results of research suggest that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive home environments for children." [p.7] Be sure to check out the relevant citations to see what data this conclusion is being based on.

Children need a mother and father within close reach so that they learn how to treat and be treated. A father cannot provide in the same way a mother can, and vice-versa. Child-psychologists have proven this, let alone biologists and anthropologists.

From the same source:

"In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth" [p.15] The data is not on your side here.

A girl raised by two women as opposed to one acquires no significant learning on how men are meant to treat her in the household...Encouraging SSM is the discouragement of natural child development. Children who grow up in SSM households are not adequate because of their parental structure - they are adequate in spite of it.

Pretty much bullshit. All the data I have seen, and there is a lot of it, has shown there is virtually no difference in all facets of psychosocial, emotional and developmental performance between a child growing up in a gay/lesbian household compared to a heterosexual one, and in some cases the children flat out perform better with gay/lesbian parents than children with heterosexual ones. None of the source you provided are convincing me otherwise, especially your link to the Family Research Council. You're really throwing caution to the wind there.

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate