Gay marriage...

[fluid.forty.one]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

this is not necessarily true. Why should I accept "let them get married, it doesn't affect you?"

Many things have been pointed out -- that don't affect you directly. Yet you have an opinion on them based on your beliefs.

I do not believe it is right. Since I don't, and I live in a free country, then we make laws about it. If I were in say Germany in the 1940's we might have resolved it by killing the different person. We aren't though, we are in the US in 2008. Our laws say that we vote to make laws based upon what "we the people" believe in.

These laws don't make us "right", nor do they make us "wrong". With my beliefs, we will be judged in the end by our maker. You may or may not have these same beliefs -- but for now we make laws based on the majorities belief.

Just a FYI. Slavery would have never ended, if the majority wouldn't have believed it was wrong. If someday the majority thinks homosexuality is OK, then the law will change. It still won't make it wrong or right, but it would make it the law.

Yeah but what I'M saying is that if you polled the nation on whether or not they think Homosexuality is "okay" and whether or not they think they should be able to get married, you would get very different results.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by ocelot_ark

And I'm not saying that's incorrect. But that article most definitely is drawing the conclusion that gays are responsible for much of those loosening societal morals.

If your best friend jumps off a bridge, does that mean you're going to as well?
If your best friend sucks many penises, does that mean you're going to as well?

Peer pressure makes people gay? Peer pressure makes people leave their families?

No. People make decisions themselves. No one is forcing anyone else to get married in the first place. If you get married and subsequently cheat on your wife, it's not SOCIETY'S fault.

And if we want to get INTO loosening morals, I think the sheer volume of independent women and husbands whose wives aren't at home all the time has MUCH more of an impact on married life than anything gays have done. But, then again, I'm not trying to justify any agenda.

The question is whether the causative effect exists, not whose fault it is.

[ocelot_ark]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

this is not necessarily true. Why should I accept "let them get married, it doesn't affect you?"

Many things have been pointed out -- that don't affect you directly. Yet you have an opinion on them based on your beliefs.

I do not believe it is right. Since I don't, and I live in a free country, then we make laws about it. If I were in say Germany in the 1940's we might have resolved it by killing the different person. We aren't though, we are in the US in 2008. Our laws say that we vote to make laws based upon what "we the people" believe in.

These laws don't make us "right", nor do they make us "wrong". With my beliefs, we will be judged in the end by our maker. You may or may not have these same beliefs -- but for now we make laws based on the majorities belief.

Just a FYI. Slavery would have never ended, if the majority wouldn't have believed it was wrong. If someday the majority thinks homosexuality is OK, then the law will change. It still won't make it wrong or right, but it would make it the law.

Not trying to incite anything, but what about murder? It's against God's law to kill someone. Does that mean that soldiers are murderers? Were you a McCain supporter that believed we should stay in Iraq, knowing that many people would die at the hands of our soldiers? Does that mean you're voting for murder? I'm new to the politics forum, so I honestly don't know who you were pulling for or your stance on the war. Nor do I believe that wartime killings are necessarily murder, though there are some that do. But there are those of us that can separate God's rules when they come to matters of the state and those that don't. And there are those that ignore ONE to justify the OTHER.

[ocelot_ark]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

The question is whether the causative effect exists, not whose fault it is.

What do you mean, specifically?

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

I suppose it's too soon to for there to be any data on children raised by gay parents? Like how they achieve academically...likely to go to college? play sports? likely to behave well? misbehave? etc, etc...

If it could be proven that the gay family is just as "normal" (sorry about that word again) or "stable" as the traditional Mother/Father/Child family then that would quiet some people against gay marriage.

Let's face it - there are a lot of unwanted children in this country who are being raised poorly simply because their parents despise having "ruined" their own life by having kids (usually by accident...)

I'd be willing to bet that any gay couple who wants to have children is going to TRY to do a damn good job of raising them... Why? Because having children is completely optional to them so there's probably already a strong interest in raising that child well (just like heterosexual couples who adopt children when they can't get pregnant...)

[rabbitproof]

Good point, UD.

Except for the fact that the gays will "gayize" their young and turn them into "gaylings".

[ocelot_ark]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Let's face it - there are a lot of unwanted children in this country who are being raised poorly simply because their parents despise having "ruined" their own life by having kids (usually by accident...)

I'd be willing to bet that any gay couple who wants to have children is going to TRY to do a damn good job of raising them... Why? Because having children is completely optional to them so there's probably already a strong interest in raising that child well (just like heterosexual couples who adopt children when they can't get pregnant...)

yep. And I'm ALL FOR unwanted children being given the luxury of ANY family life, no matter how non-traditional it may be. Those children would seem to have advantages such as love, education, and support.

[fluid.forty.one]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Let's face it - there are a lot of unwanted children in this country who are being raised poorly simply because their parents despise having "ruined" their own life by having kids (usually by accident...)

I'd be willing to bet that any gay couple who wants to have children is going to TRY to do a damn good job of raising them... Why? Because having children is completely optional to them so there's probably already a strong interest in raising that child well (just like heterosexual couples who adopt children when they can't get pregnant...)

<---- wishes rep worked

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by ocelot_ark

Not trying to incite anything, but what about murder? It's against God's law to kill someone. Does that mean that soldiers are murderers? Were you a McCain supporter that believed we should stay in Iraq, knowing that many people would die at the hands of our soldiers? Does that mean you're voting for murder? I'm new to the politics forum, so I honestly don't know who you were pulling for or your stance on the war. Nor do I believe that wartime killings are necessarily murder, though there are some that do. But there are those of us that can separate God's rules when they come to matters of the state and those that don't. And there are those that ignore ONE to justify the OTHER.

Ah, Murder. That is a very very hard subject believe it or not. Moses spent 40 years in the desert for not believing in God and charging forward to kill the inhabitants of Canaan.
Joshua killed many under the direction of God.
Elijah killed the prophets of Baal in the valley of Kinshon.
Saul didn't kill all he was suppose to, so he lost the kingship.
David warred with many and became a great soldier/King and was a man after Gods own heart.

Jesus said to love you enemies, and to love you neighbor as thyself.

Murder and Killing are not the same thing though. I also do not believe that killing is an unforgivable sin. Personally I have always had a hard time with this one.

God allowed Elisha to call down a bear which killed kids because they were making fun of his bald head. How is that fair? Kids were being kids.

But who am I to question him, or his ways?

Job lost 10 kids who had done nothing at all wrong, basically to prove that Job was a righteous man. Was that fair to the kids?


In answer to you, I am ex-military and know about having to make a choice about killing. I have been in a fire fight. I made my choice at that time. I have asked forgiveness. Whether my choice was right or wrong -- I'll answer for with him. I did my job while in the military. I followed the rules/laws that I was given there -- they were a little different than the ones that people live with in the US today. UCMJ is a little different.

With that said, I pull for Gods will to be done. I thought McCain was the better choice for the military aspect. God chose for Obama to be in charge of this nation at this time. Who am I to question him? As long as Obama's choices don't get in direct conflict with what I believe Gods will/laws to be, then I will support him. If they do conflict, I will follow my interpretation of what I believe God's will is. That makes me just as bad/good as any Muslim terrorist and yes, I recognize that.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Let's face it - there are a lot of unwanted children in this country who are being raised poorly simply because their parents despise having "ruined" their own life by having kids (usually by accident...)

I'd be willing to bet that any gay couple who wants to have children is going to TRY to do a damn good job of raising them... Why? Because having children is completely optional to them so there's probably already a strong interest in raising that child well (just like heterosexual couples who adopt children when they can't get pregnant...)

This is quite hard on the kids though.

I coach a child who has been adopted by a gay couple. The child is straight (or at least seems so for a 13 year old), but he is really ostracized because of his "parents". I actually first started coaching him because other coaches wouldn't because of his "parents".

He has a younger brother who is 11 and gay. At 11 he acts just like his adopted "mother". They home school him to keep him away from the problems.

These kids are healthy, and loved. While I don't agree with their lifestyle -- I do pray for them, and talk with them. They are doing better than many of the other children in one parent households that I coach.

[92bDad]

Interesting points:

http://townhall.com/columnists/Maggi...arriage_crisis

Long read, but again some good material as to the effect of Gay Marriage:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...zypwj.asp?pg=1

Here's a link to "Child Marriage":

http://www.icrw.org/docs/press/2007/...ge-5-17-07.pdf

Link regarding Incest:

http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?d...cumentID=32360

Another Incest Link:

http://www.clinicalsocialwork.com/incest.html

These are all interesting tidbits and they reinforce the question...where is the Boundary in America, who decides that boudary, and what is a boundary that we can live with today which will stand the test of time?

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

This is quite hard on the kids though.

I coach a child who has been adopted by a gay couple. The child is straight (or at least seems so for a 13 year old), but he is really ostracized because of his "parents". I actually first started coaching him because other coaches wouldn't because of his "parents".

He has a younger brother who is 11 and gay. At 11 he acts just like his adopted "mother". They home school him to keep him away from the problems.

These kids are healthy, and loved. While I don't agree with their lifestyle -- I do pray for them, and talk with them. They are doing better than many of the other children in one parent households that I coach.

Poor kids get made fun of the same way - it's not their fault that they have poor parents...

Being a kid sucks sometimes...

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

I suppose it's too soon to for there to be any data on children raised by gay parents? Like how they achieve academically...likely to go to college? play sports? likely to behave well? misbehave? etc, etc...

If it could be proven that the gay family is just as "normal" (sorry about that word again) or "stable" as the traditional Mother/Father/Child family then that would quiet some people against gay marriage.

i wan't aware that "gay" was just discovered this generation...!


anecdotally... I have two friends that were raised primarily by gay parents (one had two moms.... one had two dads) One got his masters at Colombia U, and works for the NY fed (a very tough gig to secure) the other went to williams college and stanford law and is pulling in obscene amounts of money.

Both are straight.

this obviously doesn't indicate any trend or broader implications... just interesting stories.

[ocelot_ark]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

i wan't aware that "gay" was just discovered this generation...!


anecdotally... I have two friends that were raised primarily by gay parents (one had two moms.... one had two dads) One got his masters at Colombia U, and works for the NY fed (a very tough gig to secure) the other went to williams college and stanford law and is pulling in obscene amounts of money.

Both are straight.

this obviously doesn't indicate any trend or broader implications... just interesting stories.

So they're both straight..meaning they only have sex with animals of the opposite sex?

[kg_veteran]

THE SECULAR CASE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE - Adam Kolasinksi

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason to grant them the costly benefits of marriage.

The Tech, Volume 124, Number 5
Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - link

The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one's spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.

I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse's social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse's health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between to unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.

Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reaching technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.

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.

One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian's sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe's Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child's development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a scoial policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.

Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state's interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.

Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.

Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.

The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis cant it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction that love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.

Adam Kolasinski is a doctoral student in financial economics.

[ocelot_ark]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

THE SECULAR CASE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE - Adam Kolasinksi

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason to grant them the costly benefits of marriage.

The Tech, Volume 124, Number 5
Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - link

The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one's spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.

I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse's social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse's health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between to unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.

Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reaching technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.

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.

One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian's sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe's Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child's development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a scoial policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.

Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state's interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.

Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.

Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.

The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis cant it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction that love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.

Adam Kolasinski is a doctoral student in financial economics.

That's it! From here on, as soon as a husband or wife is widowed, we should take those darn kids away! The absence of either a male or female leads to chaos! Seriously? Two loving gay parents would do a WORSE job than an average foster home, orphanage, state facility, etc? REALLY?

I can see the financial benefits being a legitimate cause for concern, however. BUT, as the article mentions, adoption can easily serve as a means to propagate society.

The abolition of slavery did little to save or raise money for the states...but somehow we accomplished that one. Ensuring equal rights for all shouldn't come down to whether or not it's economical.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by ocelot_ark

That's it! From here on, as soon as a husband or wife is widowed, we should take those darn kids away! The absence of either a male or female leads to chaos! Seriously? Two loving gay parents would do a WORSE job than an average foster home, orphanage, state facility, etc? REALLY?

I'm not sure how you came away with this after reading the article I just posted.

I can see the financial benefits being a legitimate cause for concern, however. BUT, as the article mentions, adoption can easily serve as a means to propagate society.

The article doesn't say that, and it's obviously untrue. Adoption is not a means of propagation.

The abolition of slavery did little to save or raise money for the states...but somehow we accomplished that one. Ensuring equal rights for all shouldn't come down to whether or not it's economical.

You missed the point entirely.

Of course, the overarching point in posting this article was yet again to prove that there are coherent, secular arguments against gay marriage which have no basis in religion.

[jthig32]

The first article didn't do much for me, KG, but that above is a compelling article. It speaks to the entire reason for marriage to be regulated by the government in the first place, and the reasons for exclusions from marriage. I've never heard an argument to that effect.

Thanks.

[ocelot_ark]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I'm not sure how you came away with this after reading the article I just posted.

One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian's sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe's Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child's development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a scoial policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.

That seems pretty clear to me. Children can't be properly developed without the presence of a male AND a female. Black and white. Right there.

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

The article doesn't say that, and it's obviously untrue. Adoption is not a means of propagation.

You're correct. i misunderstood the meaning of propagation.

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

You missed the point entirely.

Of course, the overarching point in posting this article was yet again to prove that there are coherent, secular arguments against gay marriage which have no basis in religion.

I'll definitely concede that. But, to me, the article is saying that states recognize marriage because marriage will lead to children, which will lead to further generations of taxpayers. And that, while a very logical explanation, just doesn't satisfy the civil requirement to equal rights...once again, to me.

But his whole article is based on the precept that denial of marriage to incestuous couples, polygamists, and those that could pass a birth defect is equal to denying marriage to gays. That states don't JUST deny to gays. Well two of those three are illegal and the other is meant to prevent the propagation of special needs children.

And the second you can find me an instance of a state denying marriage to a traditional couple for reasons other than those the author mentions, I'll buy the argument.

[chumdawg]

Yes, that is an interesting article, and it does make some compelling arguments. A couple things, though.

It should be qualified exactly what argument the article is making. Is it talking about federal restrictions on marriage, or state-by-state restrictions? It seems to be a state issue as it now stands, but the article cites the cost of transferring (federal) social security benefits to a surviving spouse, as well the cost of providing a (federal, presumably) tax exemption for a spouse. Either I don't understand this correctly, or the author should clarify the argument.

The article also cites the cost of health insurance policies being extended to spouses. As far as I gather, this is primarily a private business matter. And I believe there is already the precedent of health insurance companies--even some for government employees--extending benefits to same-sex partners.

I'd like to hear those questions answered, for starters.

[chumdawg]

This is probably the money part of the article, within the context of the "civil rights" debate:

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.

The state does have an interest in equal protection for all.

The argument in the article is that the state subsidizes, for their benefit and for its own, couples in X Group because couples in X Group can procreate, but not couples in Y Group because couples in Y Group cannot procreate. The article acknowledges that some couples in Y Group do receive the X Group subsidies, either because their situations are rare or because determining their situation would be unwieldy. It follows, then, that the other members of Y Group are not receiving equal protection under the law.

[Dirkadirkastan]

This thread is gay.

[DirkFTW]

^Freaking stupid rep system...

[Big Boy Laroux]

I don't know if this was posted in this thread already.

Olbermann on gay marriage - I would have to say he sums up my views on the subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVUecPhQPqY

[mnmpeanut]

i don't agree with olbermann too often, but i couldn't have said it better.

[DirkFTW]

This is the best sig for this thread.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Big Boy Laroux

I don't know if this was posted in this thread already.

Olbermann on gay marriage - I would have to say he sums up my views on the subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVUecPhQPqY

Olby's wrong about the permanence thing. CA has civil unions/domestic partnerships. Prop 8 doesn't make it illegal for homosexuals to be together and be afforded the legal protections and civil rights available to married people. From what I understand, the thing missing is purely economic. (You know, the patriotic duty to pay taxes. )

Without that strawman, I don't see much left in his argument. Very good delivery though!