|
United States12607 Posts
On June 28 2010 15:01 GogoKodo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2010 14:50 JWD wrote:On June 28 2010 14:48 Manifesto7 wrote:On June 28 2010 14:37 GogoKodo wrote:On June 28 2010 14:21 Manifesto7 wrote:On June 28 2010 14:08 RageOverdose wrote:On June 28 2010 13:52 Alou wrote:On June 28 2010 13:49 Djzapz wrote:
Yay @ the world moving forward on issues that don't really matter. This issue is special in that it shows maturity for allowing something inoffensive and immaturity for wanting something completely useless. Wanting something completely useless? If I want to marry a man I should be allowed to just as if I wanted to marry a woman. How is having that right recognized useless? How is marriage useful in and of itself, not with what we have put with it officially through the state? Marriage is just really a title. All in all, it serves no purpose, and is really just ceremonial above practical. The idea of gifts and such, in my opinion, should be for the benefit of raising children, not to commemorate someone's love officially, I think that's silly. Although I don't see anything wrong with marriage and I wouldn't stop anyone, to call it useful is really weird. And I mean this in the official, state-sanctioned sense, not any personal sense. If two people want to be recognized for their partnership, by all means. But I'm glad that countries are recognizing same sex marriage. People who don't like it won't actually have their marriages ruined because of it. In my opinion marriage represents an important social purpose. It is a representation of commitment to the community and society in general that you are forming a union with another person. This includes not only the two people getting married but also their respective families and resources. I think this is an important bond that helps keep the fabric of society strong. It is also a commitment to raising a family, and while marriage is not a prerequisite obviously, it is still the most established environment for raising children. Your complaint about gifts has nothing to do with marriage, but rather weddings. That is an entirely separate issue. The state-sanctioned aspect of marriage is simply for tax and organizational purposes, (it saves you a lot of money, so it is useful) and if you are not comfortable with that you can simply have a ceremony and remain common-law, enjoying all the benefits of an officially married couple (at least in Canada). And finally, I don't care who marries who. If two dudes want to get married, it doesn't affect me whatsoever. If they want to adopt... well that is a different story. Good right up until the end I think. Why would two dudes (or two women) adopting a child affect you in any way? It doesn't affect me, I have a feeling it affects the children. I am not sure I am comfortable with children being raised in the environment. This isn't something I am willing to march for, and I know that a good or bad environment exists in individual situations regardless of parental makeup, but I am not sure how to reconcile a homosexual relationship with parental upbringing. Because I cannot reconcile that dichotomy, I am not comfortable with the situation. Children brought up by same-sex couples would have slightly different childhoods to be sure. But the empirical evidence is that gays are not inferior parents. And when you consider how many children there are living in shitholes with abusive parents, or in foster homes and orphanages waiting for adoption, it seems a travesty to prevent a significant population of willing, able parents from raising kids. I was wasting time web surfing while you basically responded for me. A little addition I would like to make though. Even if there was evidence that a child being brought up with homosexual parents showed that they were some how hindered in development or faced some hardships I still don't think it would be a good reason to stop it. I imagine interracial couples adopting or having children and those children could have a harder time growing up. I'm quite sure this is something you have familiarity with. And as for myself I've dealt with it (half Chinese half Caucasian), growing up and not feeling a part of certain groups. Or being part of a group but not completely, such as hanging out with Chinese peers but not knowing the language myself. Unless there is abuse or neglect of the children going on I don't see why children should be denied to someone.
Good point, and the race analogy is spot on. You could take the Supreme Court case that struck down interracial marriage bans, change all instances of "race" to "sexual orientation," and publish it as the opinion making marriage a Constitutional right for homo and heterosexuals. It'd read perfectly.
Yes there was a time when giving rights to interracial couples gave people the heeby-jeebies too.
|
United States12607 Posts
On June 28 2010 15:04 ghrur wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2010 14:58 Djzapz wrote:On June 28 2010 14:57 ghrur wrote:On June 28 2010 14:38 darmousseh wrote:
In the past the government was not even involved in the question of marriage. It was only recently at least in the united states that states started issuing licences to get married and placing terms of restrictions on those licences. In terms of application, marriage is simply a property contract granting shared property. For some it means a lot of other things, but the government has no right to dictate to terms, conditions, or rules concerning marriage. The best solution is to remove the word marriage from all legislation. In any places where someone gets tax breaks or benefits, change it to households. There is no reason why the government should dictate the terms of my marriage at all.
Why this is the best solution.
1. Allows people to define marriage however they want.
2. Allows businesses to define marriage however they want.
3. Allows churches to define marriage however they want and discriminate if they so choose.
Done
I'm sorry, but too bad. Marriage is, and has been, a government institution since the beginning of our government (Well, past the articles of confederation cuz Idk about that, lol). It is stated in the constitution that government has control over laws regarding marriage. Therefore, they have the right to make laws regarding marriage. Also, changing every single piece of legislation from marriage to households would be EXTREMELY annoying and difficult. To do so would require the US to pass another constitutional amendment. Yeah, have fun doing that. >_> Just because it's borderline un-doable doesn't change the fact that it would be better. Unfortunately the constitution is far from perfect. Well, see, that's just the thing though. It is unrealistic to change the constitution for such a minor issue. I mean, we could simply have marriage have multiple definitions between people of different professions (like we have with countless words).
I strongly disagree that this is a minor issue. It's far and away the biggest civil rights issue in America today, and hotly contested if you consider older voters.
Edit: clarification (in post below) noted, yea.
|
On June 28 2010 15:05 JWD wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2010 15:04 ghrur wrote:On June 28 2010 14:58 Djzapz wrote:On June 28 2010 14:57 ghrur wrote:On June 28 2010 14:38 darmousseh wrote:
In the past the government was not even involved in the question of marriage. It was only recently at least in the united states that states started issuing licences to get married and placing terms of restrictions on those licences. In terms of application, marriage is simply a property contract granting shared property. For some it means a lot of other things, but the government has no right to dictate to terms, conditions, or rules concerning marriage. The best solution is to remove the word marriage from all legislation. In any places where someone gets tax breaks or benefits, change it to households. There is no reason why the government should dictate the terms of my marriage at all.
Why this is the best solution.
1. Allows people to define marriage however they want.
2. Allows businesses to define marriage however they want.
3. Allows churches to define marriage however they want and discriminate if they so choose.
Done
I'm sorry, but too bad. Marriage is, and has been, a government institution since the beginning of our government (Well, past the articles of confederation cuz Idk about that, lol). It is stated in the constitution that government has control over laws regarding marriage. Therefore, they have the right to make laws regarding marriage. Also, changing every single piece of legislation from marriage to households would be EXTREMELY annoying and difficult. To do so would require the US to pass another constitutional amendment. Yeah, have fun doing that. >_> Just because it's borderline un-doable doesn't change the fact that it would be better. Unfortunately the constitution is far from perfect. Well, see, that's just the thing though. It is unrealistic to change the constitution for such a minor issue. I mean, we could simply have marriage have multiple definitions between people of different professions (like we have with countless words). I strongly disagree that this is a minor issue. It's far and away the biggest civil rights issue in America today, and still very polarizing if you consider older voters.
I don't mean the gay rights issue. I mean the changing "marriage" to "households" in all current legislation issue.
|
On June 28 2010 15:04 ghrur wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2010 14:58 Djzapz wrote:On June 28 2010 14:57 ghrur wrote:On June 28 2010 14:38 darmousseh wrote:
In the past the government was not even involved in the question of marriage. It was only recently at least in the united states that states started issuing licences to get married and placing terms of restrictions on those licences. In terms of application, marriage is simply a property contract granting shared property. For some it means a lot of other things, but the government has no right to dictate to terms, conditions, or rules concerning marriage. The best solution is to remove the word marriage from all legislation. In any places where someone gets tax breaks or benefits, change it to households. There is no reason why the government should dictate the terms of my marriage at all.
Why this is the best solution.
1. Allows people to define marriage however they want.
2. Allows businesses to define marriage however they want.
3. Allows churches to define marriage however they want and discriminate if they so choose.
Done
I'm sorry, but too bad. Marriage is, and has been, a government institution since the beginning of our government (Well, past the articles of confederation cuz Idk about that, lol). It is stated in the constitution that government has control over laws regarding marriage. Therefore, they have the right to make laws regarding marriage. Also, changing every single piece of legislation from marriage to households would be EXTREMELY annoying and difficult. To do so would require the US to pass another constitutional amendment. Yeah, have fun doing that. >_> Just because it's borderline un-doable doesn't change the fact that it would be better. Unfortunately the constitution is far from perfect. Well, see, that's just the thing though. It is unrealistic to change the constitution for such a minor issue. I mean, we could simply have marriage have multiple definitions between people of different professions (like we have with countless words).
Equal rights is an huge issue. HUGE issue.
|
Osaka27178 Posts
On June 28 2010 14:50 JWD wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2010 14:48 Manifesto7 wrote:On June 28 2010 14:37 GogoKodo wrote:On June 28 2010 14:21 Manifesto7 wrote:On June 28 2010 14:08 RageOverdose wrote:On June 28 2010 13:52 Alou wrote:On June 28 2010 13:49 Djzapz wrote:
Yay @ the world moving forward on issues that don't really matter. This issue is special in that it shows maturity for allowing something inoffensive and immaturity for wanting something completely useless. Wanting something completely useless? If I want to marry a man I should be allowed to just as if I wanted to marry a woman. How is having that right recognized useless? How is marriage useful in and of itself, not with what we have put with it officially through the state? Marriage is just really a title. All in all, it serves no purpose, and is really just ceremonial above practical. The idea of gifts and such, in my opinion, should be for the benefit of raising children, not to commemorate someone's love officially, I think that's silly. Although I don't see anything wrong with marriage and I wouldn't stop anyone, to call it useful is really weird. And I mean this in the official, state-sanctioned sense, not any personal sense. If two people want to be recognized for their partnership, by all means. But I'm glad that countries are recognizing same sex marriage. People who don't like it won't actually have their marriages ruined because of it. In my opinion marriage represents an important social purpose. It is a representation of commitment to the community and society in general that you are forming a union with another person. This includes not only the two people getting married but also their respective families and resources. I think this is an important bond that helps keep the fabric of society strong. It is also a commitment to raising a family, and while marriage is not a prerequisite obviously, it is still the most established environment for raising children. Your complaint about gifts has nothing to do with marriage, but rather weddings. That is an entirely separate issue. The state-sanctioned aspect of marriage is simply for tax and organizational purposes, (it saves you a lot of money, so it is useful) and if you are not comfortable with that you can simply have a ceremony and remain common-law, enjoying all the benefits of an officially married couple (at least in Canada). And finally, I don't care who marries who. If two dudes want to get married, it doesn't affect me whatsoever. If they want to adopt... well that is a different story. Good right up until the end I think. Why would two dudes (or two women) adopting a child affect you in any way? It doesn't affect me, I have a feeling it affects the children. I am not sure I am comfortable with children being raised in the environment. This isn't something I am willing to march for, and I know that a good or bad environment exists in individual situations regardless of parental makeup, but I am not sure how to reconcile a homosexual relationship with parental upbringing. Because I cannot reconcile that dichotomy, I am not comfortable with the situation. Children brought up by same-sex couples would have slightly different childhoods to be sure. But the empirical evidence is that gays are not inferior parents. And when you consider how many children there are living in shitholes with abusive parents, or in foster homes and orphanages waiting for adoption, it seems a travesty to prevent a significant population of willing, able parents from raising kids.
I never said or implied inferior.
I also think the "how many children there are living in shitholes with abusive parents" will exist regardless of heterosexual or homosexual orientation, although obviously it is easier to create a poor environment in a heterosexual environment as having children can be unintentional.
To me it seems that gay parents in the media are usually painted as either the devil or the best parents in the world, when the reality is probably somewhere in between. I also think the reality of the empirical evidence is unrealistic now until adoption becomes more mainstream and can be studied from a greater segment of the population.
Again, this is just a feeling I have as a parent. I don't know how to reconcile the maternal or paternal instincts in people who are not heterosexual. I guess I need to have more exposure to that kind of environment to better understand it.
edit - Good point, and the race analogy is spot on. You could take the Supreme Court case that struck down interracial marriage bans, change all instances of "race" to "sexual orientation," and publish it as the opinion making marriage a Constitutional right for homo and heterosexuals. It'd read perfectly.
I don't think the race analogy is spot on at all. A person's race does not affect behaviour while a person's sexual orientation does.
|
On June 28 2010 15:06 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2010 15:04 ghrur wrote:On June 28 2010 14:58 Djzapz wrote:On June 28 2010 14:57 ghrur wrote:On June 28 2010 14:38 darmousseh wrote:
In the past the government was not even involved in the question of marriage. It was only recently at least in the united states that states started issuing licences to get married and placing terms of restrictions on those licences. In terms of application, marriage is simply a property contract granting shared property. For some it means a lot of other things, but the government has no right to dictate to terms, conditions, or rules concerning marriage. The best solution is to remove the word marriage from all legislation. In any places where someone gets tax breaks or benefits, change it to households. There is no reason why the government should dictate the terms of my marriage at all.
Why this is the best solution.
1. Allows people to define marriage however they want.
2. Allows businesses to define marriage however they want.
3. Allows churches to define marriage however they want and discriminate if they so choose.
Done
I'm sorry, but too bad. Marriage is, and has been, a government institution since the beginning of our government (Well, past the articles of confederation cuz Idk about that, lol). It is stated in the constitution that government has control over laws regarding marriage. Therefore, they have the right to make laws regarding marriage. Also, changing every single piece of legislation from marriage to households would be EXTREMELY annoying and difficult. To do so would require the US to pass another constitutional amendment. Yeah, have fun doing that. >_> Just because it's borderline un-doable doesn't change the fact that it would be better. Unfortunately the constitution is far from perfect. Well, see, that's just the thing though. It is unrealistic to change the constitution for such a minor issue. I mean, we could simply have marriage have multiple definitions between people of different professions (like we have with countless words). Equal rights is an huge issue. HUGE issue.
I'm sorry. I feel like I phrased what I'm expressing poorly.
What I mean is this:
Changing the constitution just to satisfy the condition that all laws regarding marriage change the use of the word marriage to household is a minor issue that would be an inconvenient thing to implement. I am in no ways saying that the civil rights issue of gay marriage is a minor issue.
|
On June 28 2010 15:10 ghrur wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2010 15:06 Djzapz wrote:On June 28 2010 15:04 ghrur wrote:On June 28 2010 14:58 Djzapz wrote:On June 28 2010 14:57 ghrur wrote:On June 28 2010 14:38 darmousseh wrote:
In the past the government was not even involved in the question of marriage. It was only recently at least in the united states that states started issuing licences to get married and placing terms of restrictions on those licences. In terms of application, marriage is simply a property contract granting shared property. For some it means a lot of other things, but the government has no right to dictate to terms, conditions, or rules concerning marriage. The best solution is to remove the word marriage from all legislation. In any places where someone gets tax breaks or benefits, change it to households. There is no reason why the government should dictate the terms of my marriage at all.
Why this is the best solution.
1. Allows people to define marriage however they want.
2. Allows businesses to define marriage however they want.
3. Allows churches to define marriage however they want and discriminate if they so choose.
Done
I'm sorry, but too bad. Marriage is, and has been, a government institution since the beginning of our government (Well, past the articles of confederation cuz Idk about that, lol). It is stated in the constitution that government has control over laws regarding marriage. Therefore, they have the right to make laws regarding marriage. Also, changing every single piece of legislation from marriage to households would be EXTREMELY annoying and difficult. To do so would require the US to pass another constitutional amendment. Yeah, have fun doing that. >_> Just because it's borderline un-doable doesn't change the fact that it would be better. Unfortunately the constitution is far from perfect. Well, see, that's just the thing though. It is unrealistic to change the constitution for such a minor issue. I mean, we could simply have marriage have multiple definitions between people of different professions (like we have with countless words). Equal rights is an huge issue. HUGE issue. I'm sorry. I feel like I phrased what I'm expressing poorly. What I mean is this: Changing the constitution just to satisfy the condition that all laws regarding marriage change the use of the word marriage to household is a minor issue that would be an inconvenient thing to implement. I am in no ways saying that the civil rights issue of gay marriage is a minor issue.
I personally do believe that the government shouldn't put its nose in marriages and stuff. "It's in the constitution so we're screwed" is something we'll have to accept until people start thinking properly.
|
United States12607 Posts
On June 28 2010 15:09 Manifesto7 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2010 14:50 JWD wrote:On June 28 2010 14:48 Manifesto7 wrote:On June 28 2010 14:37 GogoKodo wrote:On June 28 2010 14:21 Manifesto7 wrote:On June 28 2010 14:08 RageOverdose wrote:On June 28 2010 13:52 Alou wrote:On June 28 2010 13:49 Djzapz wrote:
Yay @ the world moving forward on issues that don't really matter. This issue is special in that it shows maturity for allowing something inoffensive and immaturity for wanting something completely useless. Wanting something completely useless? If I want to marry a man I should be allowed to just as if I wanted to marry a woman. How is having that right recognized useless? How is marriage useful in and of itself, not with what we have put with it officially through the state? Marriage is just really a title. All in all, it serves no purpose, and is really just ceremonial above practical. The idea of gifts and such, in my opinion, should be for the benefit of raising children, not to commemorate someone's love officially, I think that's silly. Although I don't see anything wrong with marriage and I wouldn't stop anyone, to call it useful is really weird. And I mean this in the official, state-sanctioned sense, not any personal sense. If two people want to be recognized for their partnership, by all means. But I'm glad that countries are recognizing same sex marriage. People who don't like it won't actually have their marriages ruined because of it. In my opinion marriage represents an important social purpose. It is a representation of commitment to the community and society in general that you are forming a union with another person. This includes not only the two people getting married but also their respective families and resources. I think this is an important bond that helps keep the fabric of society strong. It is also a commitment to raising a family, and while marriage is not a prerequisite obviously, it is still the most established environment for raising children. Your complaint about gifts has nothing to do with marriage, but rather weddings. That is an entirely separate issue. The state-sanctioned aspect of marriage is simply for tax and organizational purposes, (it saves you a lot of money, so it is useful) and if you are not comfortable with that you can simply have a ceremony and remain common-law, enjoying all the benefits of an officially married couple (at least in Canada). And finally, I don't care who marries who. If two dudes want to get married, it doesn't affect me whatsoever. If they want to adopt... well that is a different story. Good right up until the end I think. Why would two dudes (or two women) adopting a child affect you in any way? It doesn't affect me, I have a feeling it affects the children. I am not sure I am comfortable with children being raised in the environment. This isn't something I am willing to march for, and I know that a good or bad environment exists in individual situations regardless of parental makeup, but I am not sure how to reconcile a homosexual relationship with parental upbringing. Because I cannot reconcile that dichotomy, I am not comfortable with the situation. Children brought up by same-sex couples would have slightly different childhoods to be sure. But the empirical evidence is that gays are not inferior parents. And when you consider how many children there are living in shitholes with abusive parents, or in foster homes and orphanages waiting for adoption, it seems a travesty to prevent a significant population of willing, able parents from raising kids. I never said or implied inferior. I also think the "how many children there are living in shitholes with abusive parents" will exist regardless of heterosexual or homosexual orientation, although obviously it is easier to create a poor environment in a heterosexual environment as having children can be unintentional. To me it seems that gay parents in the media are usually painted as either the devil or the best parents in the world, when the reality is probably somewhere in between. I also think the reality of the empirical evidence is unrealistic now until adoption becomes more mainstream and can be studied from a greater segment of the population. Again, this is just a feeling I have as a parent. I don't know how to reconcile the maternal or paternal instincts in people who are not heterosexual. I guess I need to have more exposure to that kind of environment to better understand it.
Oh sorry Mani, I should have clarified that I didn't suspect you were even suggesting that homosexual parents are inferior. I merely wrote that line because it seemed relevant to the discussion here.
I understand what you are saying, that it's difficult to understand how exactly parenting in a homosexual household would play out. My two cents on that is that I think it's completely acceptable to be unsure of, or even uncomfortable about, something but realize that allowing that thing is the right policy choice.
For example I am somewhat concerned about the health of children of parents who are morbidly obese and have very unhealthy lifestyles. It makes me uncomfortable to think of parents allowing their kids to watch TV 10 hours a day and eat nothing but fast food, it really does. Kind of gross. But, for policy reasons that are completely unrelated to this uncomfortable feeling, I realize that morbidly obese people with unhealthy lifestyles should be allowed to raise children.
|
On June 28 2010 15:13 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2010 15:10 ghrur wrote:On June 28 2010 15:06 Djzapz wrote:On June 28 2010 15:04 ghrur wrote:On June 28 2010 14:58 Djzapz wrote:On June 28 2010 14:57 ghrur wrote:On June 28 2010 14:38 darmousseh wrote:
In the past the government was not even involved in the question of marriage. It was only recently at least in the united states that states started issuing licences to get married and placing terms of restrictions on those licences. In terms of application, marriage is simply a property contract granting shared property. For some it means a lot of other things, but the government has no right to dictate to terms, conditions, or rules concerning marriage. The best solution is to remove the word marriage from all legislation. In any places where someone gets tax breaks or benefits, change it to households. There is no reason why the government should dictate the terms of my marriage at all.
Why this is the best solution.
1. Allows people to define marriage however they want.
2. Allows businesses to define marriage however they want.
3. Allows churches to define marriage however they want and discriminate if they so choose.
Done
I'm sorry, but too bad. Marriage is, and has been, a government institution since the beginning of our government (Well, past the articles of confederation cuz Idk about that, lol). It is stated in the constitution that government has control over laws regarding marriage. Therefore, they have the right to make laws regarding marriage. Also, changing every single piece of legislation from marriage to households would be EXTREMELY annoying and difficult. To do so would require the US to pass another constitutional amendment. Yeah, have fun doing that. >_> Just because it's borderline un-doable doesn't change the fact that it would be better. Unfortunately the constitution is far from perfect. Well, see, that's just the thing though. It is unrealistic to change the constitution for such a minor issue. I mean, we could simply have marriage have multiple definitions between people of different professions (like we have with countless words). Equal rights is an huge issue. HUGE issue. I'm sorry. I feel like I phrased what I'm expressing poorly. What I mean is this: Changing the constitution just to satisfy the condition that all laws regarding marriage change the use of the word marriage to household is a minor issue that would be an inconvenient thing to implement. I am in no ways saying that the civil rights issue of gay marriage is a minor issue. I personally do believe that the government shouldn't put its nose in marriages and stuff. "It's in the constitution so we're screwed" is something we'll have to accept until people start thinking properly.
Conversely, I believe they should because marriage is helpful in creating productive citizens (given all the sociological data about children of married couples to single parents, etc etc). As such, the government promoting it through giving it financial benefits compared to single people is beneficial to our society. On the other hand, I don't believe households really differentiates between a married couple and a single person. =/
|
I'm in favor of all "marriage" being changed to "civil unions", and having religious titles be kept out of government entirely.
|
My 2 cents is that marriage has always been officially defined as a union between 1 man and 1 woman. The primary purpose of this is 1) the procreation and raising of children, and 2) mutual comfort between the man and wife.
The problem with same sex "marriage" is that it competely rewrites the definition, and does not allow for the primary purpose, since a homosexual relationship is completely sterile.
|
United States12607 Posts
On June 28 2010 15:09 Manifesto7 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2010 14:50 JWD wrote:On June 28 2010 14:48 Manifesto7 wrote:On June 28 2010 14:37 GogoKodo wrote:On June 28 2010 14:21 Manifesto7 wrote:On June 28 2010 14:08 RageOverdose wrote:On June 28 2010 13:52 Alou wrote:On June 28 2010 13:49 Djzapz wrote:
Yay @ the world moving forward on issues that don't really matter. This issue is special in that it shows maturity for allowing something inoffensive and immaturity for wanting something completely useless. Wanting something completely useless? If I want to marry a man I should be allowed to just as if I wanted to marry a woman. How is having that right recognized useless? How is marriage useful in and of itself, not with what we have put with it officially through the state? Marriage is just really a title. All in all, it serves no purpose, and is really just ceremonial above practical. The idea of gifts and such, in my opinion, should be for the benefit of raising children, not to commemorate someone's love officially, I think that's silly. Although I don't see anything wrong with marriage and I wouldn't stop anyone, to call it useful is really weird. And I mean this in the official, state-sanctioned sense, not any personal sense. If two people want to be recognized for their partnership, by all means. But I'm glad that countries are recognizing same sex marriage. People who don't like it won't actually have their marriages ruined because of it. In my opinion marriage represents an important social purpose. It is a representation of commitment to the community and society in general that you are forming a union with another person. This includes not only the two people getting married but also their respective families and resources. I think this is an important bond that helps keep the fabric of society strong. It is also a commitment to raising a family, and while marriage is not a prerequisite obviously, it is still the most established environment for raising children. Your complaint about gifts has nothing to do with marriage, but rather weddings. That is an entirely separate issue. The state-sanctioned aspect of marriage is simply for tax and organizational purposes, (it saves you a lot of money, so it is useful) and if you are not comfortable with that you can simply have a ceremony and remain common-law, enjoying all the benefits of an officially married couple (at least in Canada). And finally, I don't care who marries who. If two dudes want to get married, it doesn't affect me whatsoever. If they want to adopt... well that is a different story. Good right up until the end I think. Why would two dudes (or two women) adopting a child affect you in any way? It doesn't affect me, I have a feeling it affects the children. I am not sure I am comfortable with children being raised in the environment. This isn't something I am willing to march for, and I know that a good or bad environment exists in individual situations regardless of parental makeup, but I am not sure how to reconcile a homosexual relationship with parental upbringing. Because I cannot reconcile that dichotomy, I am not comfortable with the situation. Children brought up by same-sex couples would have slightly different childhoods to be sure. But the empirical evidence is that gays are not inferior parents. And when you consider how many children there are living in shitholes with abusive parents, or in foster homes and orphanages waiting for adoption, it seems a travesty to prevent a significant population of willing, able parents from raising kids. I never said or implied inferior. I also think the "how many children there are living in shitholes with abusive parents" will exist regardless of heterosexual or homosexual orientation, although obviously it is easier to create a poor environment in a heterosexual environment as having children can be unintentional. To me it seems that gay parents in the media are usually painted as either the devil or the best parents in the world, when the reality is probably somewhere in between. I also think the reality of the empirical evidence is unrealistic now until adoption becomes more mainstream and can be studied from a greater segment of the population. Again, this is just a feeling I have as a parent. I don't know how to reconcile the maternal or paternal instincts in people who are not heterosexual. I guess I need to have more exposure to that kind of environment to better understand it. edit - Show nested quote +Good point, and the race analogy is spot on. You could take the Supreme Court case that struck down interracial marriage bans, change all instances of "race" to "sexual orientation," and publish it as the opinion making marriage a Constitutional right for homo and heterosexuals. It'd read perfectly. I don't think the race analogy is spot on at all. A person's race does not affect behaviour while a person's sexual orientation does.
The race analogy is spot on in many ways, I suppose I should have said. For one, the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement are progressing almost identically. We have some states granting gays marriage rights earlier, some states holding out or even passing anti-gay laws. We have a Supreme Court and a Congress that is slowly beginning to grapple with sexual orientation discrimination. We have steadily mounting public support for gay rights, we have protests and we have a sense, amongst those involved in the movement, that in 30 years we will look back on anti-gay policies and see them as archaic and backwards.
And while homosexuality certainly does influence behavior, you could make a strong argument that race does as well (isn't racism just race influencing behavior, for example?). But more importantly, on the issue of childrearing at least, homosexuality might certainly influence behavior (parenting) but we have to ask ourselves how? Without some proof that the influence is a negative one, it can't concern us as would-be policymakers. My point is: just as we should allow couples of all race combinations to raise children because, amongst other reasons, parents' race does not negatively influence childrearing, we should allow couples of all sexual orientations to raise children because, amongst other reasons, parents' sexual orientation does not negatively influence childrearing. That's the sense in which the race analogy is spot on.
Furthermore if you traveled back 100 years or so, you would find opponents of interracial marriage and interracial couple childrearing making many, many identical arguments to those that opponents of gay marriage and gay childrearing are making today. It's quite striking.
|
"Same sex marriage" ....Hell no you were made to be a man not a faggot. Your doing it wrong.
User was banned for this post.
|
On June 28 2010 15:24 Belegorm wrote:
My 2 cents is that marriage has always been officially defined as a union between 1 man and 1 woman. The primary purpose of this is 1) the procreation and raising of children, and 2) mutual comfort between the man and wife.
The problem with same sex "marriage" is that it competely rewrites the definition, and does not allow for the primary purpose, since a homosexual relationship is completely sterile.
Hmm, I disagree with the primary purpose, but only parts of it.
For 1, procreation is not necessary. Otherwise, as people have pointed out, people who are sterile should also not be allowed to marry. That is not the case! I do agree with the raising of children part, but JWD has already spoken about that. Also, the mutual comfort need not be between man and wife unless you're implying that a homosexual couple could not also reach this level of comfort?
Therefore, despite rewriting the definition of marriage (which we have done before, see interracial marriages), it still maintains its main purpose of raising children. In fact, I believe it helps that purpose as now, instead of having 2 single people who cannot share expenses, get marriage tax benefits, maybe not even adopt, etc, we have a married couple who can provide an economically stable environment for a child.
|
On June 28 2010 14:28 JWD wrote:Are you suggesting that the government could incentivize homosexuals to enter "productive" heterosexual marriages through tax breaks?
I'm suggesting that the state is perfectly justified in incentivizing one kind of marriage over another. There's no justifiable way for them to further incentivize it for homosexuals, so no, I'm not suggesting that.
Or merely that straight people should get tax breaks because of their more "productive" sexuality?
Thats more like it.
Seems your understanding of homosexuality is circa 1975.
Seems your understanding of tax benefits and their role is circa 1066.
|
On June 28 2010 15:29 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2010 14:28 JWD wrote:Are you suggesting that the government could incentivize homosexuals to enter "productive" heterosexual marriages through tax breaks? I'm suggesting that the state is perfectly justified in incentivizing one kind of marriage over another. There's no justifiable way for them to further incentivize it for homosexuals, so no, I'm not suggesting that. Show nested quote +Or merely that straight people should get tax breaks because of their more "productive" sexuality? Thats more like it. Seems your understanding of tax benefits and their role is circa 1066.
Excuse me for asking, but what happened to taxes in 1066? (sounding dumb ftw? :D)
|
United States12607 Posts
On June 28 2010 15:29 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +Or merely that straight people should get tax breaks because of their more "productive" sexuality? Thats more like it.
I understand your position quite a bit better now, but I think you need to consider the big-picture ramifications of policy like this. For example, surely SAT score would be a better proxy for childrearing ability than sexual orientation. Why not only give marriage-related tax breaks to intelligent couples?
Or to use a more trite example: along this line of reasoning you must agree that the government should not give marriage-related tax benefits to sterile couples, or couples that merely do not want children.
|
On June 28 2010 15:32 ghrur wrote:Excuse me for asking, but what happened to taxes in 1066? (sounding dumb ftw? :D)
I'm not sure anything major happened in 1975, I just picked a year when economics wasn't even vaguely understood.
And 1066 was the first to come to mind >.>
|
On June 28 2010 15:32 JWD wrote:I understand your position quite a bit better now, but I think you need to consider the big-picture ramifications of policy like this. For example, surely SAT score would be a better proxy for childrearing ability. Why not only give marriage-related tax breaks to intelligent couples?
You'll find I'd actually be in favor of that as well, if it was done right.
I'm consistent, even if I'm rarely popular :>
[edit] Not, mind you, that childrearing is the only thing I have ever heard mentioned as a reason for tax benefits for marriage, although its certainly the biggest and most obvious one.
|
On June 28 2010 15:20 ghrur wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2010 15:13 Djzapz wrote:On June 28 2010 15:10 ghrur wrote:On June 28 2010 15:06 Djzapz wrote:On June 28 2010 15:04 ghrur wrote:On June 28 2010 14:58 Djzapz wrote:On June 28 2010 14:57 ghrur wrote:On June 28 2010 14:38 darmousseh wrote:
In the past the government was not even involved in the question of marriage. It was only recently at least in the united states that states started issuing licences to get married and placing terms of restrictions on those licences. In terms of application, marriage is simply a property contract granting shared property. For some it means a lot of other things, but the government has no right to dictate to terms, conditions, or rules concerning marriage. The best solution is to remove the word marriage from all legislation. In any places where someone gets tax breaks or benefits, change it to households. There is no reason why the government should dictate the terms of my marriage at all.
Why this is the best solution.
1. Allows people to define marriage however they want.
2. Allows businesses to define marriage however they want.
3. Allows churches to define marriage however they want and discriminate if they so choose.
Done
I'm sorry, but too bad. Marriage is, and has been, a government institution since the beginning of our government (Well, past the articles of confederation cuz Idk about that, lol). It is stated in the constitution that government has control over laws regarding marriage. Therefore, they have the right to make laws regarding marriage. Also, changing every single piece of legislation from marriage to households would be EXTREMELY annoying and difficult. To do so would require the US to pass another constitutional amendment. Yeah, have fun doing that. >_> Just because it's borderline un-doable doesn't change the fact that it would be better. Unfortunately the constitution is far from perfect. Well, see, that's just the thing though. It is unrealistic to change the constitution for such a minor issue. I mean, we could simply have marriage have multiple definitions between people of different professions (like we have with countless words). Equal rights is an huge issue. HUGE issue. I'm sorry. I feel like I phrased what I'm expressing poorly. What I mean is this: Changing the constitution just to satisfy the condition that all laws regarding marriage change the use of the word marriage to household is a minor issue that would be an inconvenient thing to implement. I am in no ways saying that the civil rights issue of gay marriage is a minor issue. I personally do believe that the government shouldn't put its nose in marriages and stuff. "It's in the constitution so we're screwed" is something we'll have to accept until people start thinking properly. Conversely, I believe they should because marriage is helpful in creating productive citizens (given all the sociological data about children of married couples to single parents, etc etc). As such, the government promoting it through giving it financial benefits compared to single people is beneficial to our society. On the other hand, I don't believe households really differentiates between a married couple and a single person. =/
I don't believe that marriage is helpful in creating productive citizen. Look at Japan, those people are EXTREMELY career oriented and they don't get married as much as we do. Their productivity is by far higher than ours.
And financially helping couples is almost certainly good idea so I would say why not just make "couples" do some paperwork to get whatever tax cuts based on whatever criteria. They need to live together - it's based on their income, the amount of kids, whatever.
So you can have your marriage ceremony completely separate from whatever ties you have with your government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
