|
On July 15 2010 23:15 ggrrg wrote:
In principle I don't see a reason why homosexuals shouldn't express their affection for eachother by getting married. However, when you think about it marriage doesn't only mean that you are allowed to have a big celebration, but also comes with many financial priviliges that are meant to encourage couples to be together and get children (e.g. tax cuts, money when you get a child, lower insurance rates, etc.). Most of those financial priviliges exist because for a family it means that they will lose income during the wife's pregnancy and while the child is very young. On top of that women are generally paid less than a man for an equal job. Financial advantages through marriage are meant to counteract those issues. However, in gay couples at least some of those issues don't exist. So what I wonder is: Should married gay couples really recieve all or any of those priviliges?
Same-sex couples often do marry because they want to adopt kids. Why shouldn't they get the same financial privileges? Also there are a lot of straight married couples without kids, too.
That women get paid less is a whole different problem which has nothing to do with financial benefits a marriage couple gets (besides a couple of two women should even get more money then).
So yes, they should receive all of those privileges.
|
On July 15 2010 23:32 Keniji wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 23:15 ggrrg wrote:
In principle I don't see a reason why homosexuals shouldn't express their affection for eachother by getting married. However, when you think about it marriage doesn't only mean that you are allowed to have a big celebration, but also comes with many financial priviliges that are meant to encourage couples to be together and get children (e.g. tax cuts, money when you get a child, lower insurance rates, etc.). Most of those financial priviliges exist because for a family it means that they will lose income during the wife's pregnancy and while the child is very young. On top of that women are generally paid less than a man for an equal job. Financial advantages through marriage are meant to counteract those issues. However, in gay couples at least some of those issues don't exist. So what I wonder is: Should married gay couples really recieve all or any of those priviliges? Same-sex couples often do marry because they want to adopt kids. Why shouldn't they get the same financial privileges? Also there are a lot of straight married couples without kids, too. That women get paid less is a whole different problem which has nothing to do with financial benefits a marriage couple gets (besides a couple of two women should even get more money then). So yes, they should receive all of those privileges.
Most of the people who are against same-sex marriage would not accept that argument, because they are also totally against those couples being able to adopt. Which has always struck me as the most ludicrous thing about the whole issue, since there are so many kids stuck in the system. It shocks me that these self-proclaimed "family values" people would rather see these kids rot in the system than be adopted by loving parents just because they are gay.
As for the tax breaks, they are not founded on the concepts you mention, they were founded in the era when women did not work at all. The breaks were designed so that one man's income could better support his wife and children. And that is still perfectly valid in a same-sex marriage, since one partner may want to be a stay-at-home parent for the adopted children.
|
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote:
I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
This was a mature way of expressing your opinion. I'll let you in on why it is necessary for same-sex marriages to be legal. Almost all countries grant different rights to married couples than to people who are just "together" in the eyes of the law. A gay couple in America, since they aren't married for instance, doesn't have the same rights as a married couple when hospital/taxes/military/etc... laws come into play. Due to that, everyone should be treated equal right? So allowing them to have married status in the eyes of the law gives them that equality.
Marriage isn't about making and raising offspring, passing on a bloodline or any of that, this is a common myth of marriage. If that were true, sterile couples shouldn't be allowed to be married due to them being sterile. Marriage is a legally binding contract declaring two people as a couple. That is it. In the eyes of the court system, there is nothing religious about it, nor can there be a religious involvement in the courts because it is unconstitutional.
On July 15 2010 23:38 BillyMole wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 23:32 Keniji wrote:On July 15 2010 23:15 ggrrg wrote:
In principle I don't see a reason why homosexuals shouldn't express their affection for eachother by getting married. However, when you think about it marriage doesn't only mean that you are allowed to have a big celebration, but also comes with many financial priviliges that are meant to encourage couples to be together and get children (e.g. tax cuts, money when you get a child, lower insurance rates, etc.). Most of those financial priviliges exist because for a family it means that they will lose income during the wife's pregnancy and while the child is very young. On top of that women are generally paid less than a man for an equal job. Financial advantages through marriage are meant to counteract those issues. However, in gay couples at least some of those issues don't exist. So what I wonder is: Should married gay couples really recieve all or any of those priviliges? Same-sex couples often do marry because they want to adopt kids. Why shouldn't they get the same financial privileges? Also there are a lot of straight married couples without kids, too. That women get paid less is a whole different problem which has nothing to do with financial benefits a marriage couple gets (besides a couple of two women should even get more money then). So yes, they should receive all of those privileges. Most of the people who are against same-sex marriage would not accept that argument, because they are also totally against those couples being able to adopt. Which has always struck me as the most ludicrous thing about the whole issue, since there are so many kids stuck in the system. It shocks me that these self-proclaimed "family values" people would rather see these kids rot in the system than be adopted by loving parents just because they are gay. As for the tax breaks, they are not founded on the concepts you mention, they were founded in the era when women did not work at all. The breaks were designed so that one man's income could better support his wife and children. And that is still perfectly valid in a same-sex marriage, since one partner may want to be a stay-at-home parent for the adopted children.
Prejudice like this commonly makes one blind. Being against same-sex marriage makes you prejudiced. There is no logical, legal, philosophical, secular morally-binding methodology to justify being against same-sex marriage. It's commonly a deeply seeded prejudice that has to do with their religious views and/or upbringing. Your religious views or what irks you doesn't give you the right to deny others of rights.
|
On July 15 2010 22:52 Amber[LighT] wrote:
$20 says that this thread will be closed due to excessive controversial discussion that turns into a flame war.
Probably true.
I am personally thrilled that Argentina is making these steps forward. After working for a gay boss over the past two years my perception on homosexuality as a whole has been completely turned upside down. There's really no reason for two men or two women to get married aside from the religious aspect, at least that's what it seems like nowadays. To be honest I don't know why I was against gay marriage prior to 2008 anyway. Bah brainwashing 
But in all seriousness, I completely agree especially to the brainwashing in the media. I also worked with multiple gay people in some of my jobs and it has really made me realize that I can't come up with a logical explanation against it still despite so much hate for it throughout the media/slurs/whatever else.
It reminds me much of my initial opinions of religion when I was born, my parents were dedicated Christians and I essentially told them "screw that, this is stupid prove me wrong"...haven't had to go to church since and my parents stopped as well.
|
On July 15 2010 23:15 ggrrg wrote:
In principle I don't see a reason why homosexuals shouldn't express their affection for eachother by getting married. However, when you think about it marriage doesn't only mean that you are allowed to have a big celebration, but also comes with many financial priviliges that are meant to encourage couples to be together and get children (e.g. tax cuts, money when you get a child, lower insurance rates, etc.). Most of those financial priviliges exist because for a family it means that they will lose income during the wife's pregnancy and while the child is very young. On top of that women are generally paid less than a man for an equal job. Financial advantages through marriage are meant to counteract those issues. However, in gay couples at least some of those issues don't exist. So what I wonder is: Should married gay couples really recieve all or any of those priviliges?
Should straight couples where one or more partner is sterile recieve those benefits? Marriage is about property, a concept which predates religion and only indirectly applies to children. Sterile couples or those who simply choose not to have children would need to be exempt from these benefits as well by your definition.
|
Don't couples receive those privileges to be in a prime position to start a family with kids? I thought the government promoted family life this way. So if gay couples are going to do that (through adoption or artificial insemination for lesbians) im fine with that. But I also think the concept of marriage as we know it is a christian event, and I think it's hypocrite to let gays marry in church, when the religion itself is against it. The two (state marriage and church marriage) should be treated separately.
If you ask me, having gay parents isn't really the best situation for kids either (gl in high school, son of a fairy  ), but it can be a lot better than the situation they would be in otherwise.
|
On July 15 2010 23:39 Aberu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote:
I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers. This was a mature way of expressing your opinion. I'll let you in on why it is necessary for same-sex marriages to be legal. Almost all countries grant different rights to married couples than to people who are just "together" in the eyes of the law. A gay couple in America, since they aren't married for instance, doesn't have the same rights as a married couple when hospital/taxes/military/etc... laws come into play. Due to that, everyone should be treated equal right? So allowing them to have married status in the eyes of the law gives them that equality. Marriage isn't about making and raising offspring, passing on a bloodline or any of that, this is a common myth of marriage. If that were true, sterile couples shouldn't be allowed to be married due to them being sterile. Marriage is a legally binding contract declaring two people as a couple. That is it. In the eyes of the court system, there is nothing religious about it, nor can there be a religious involvement in the courts because it is unconstitutional. Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 23:38 BillyMole wrote:On July 15 2010 23:32 Keniji wrote:On July 15 2010 23:15 ggrrg wrote:
In principle I don't see a reason why homosexuals shouldn't express their affection for eachother by getting married. However, when you think about it marriage doesn't only mean that you are allowed to have a big celebration, but also comes with many financial priviliges that are meant to encourage couples to be together and get children (e.g. tax cuts, money when you get a child, lower insurance rates, etc.). Most of those financial priviliges exist because for a family it means that they will lose income during the wife's pregnancy and while the child is very young. On top of that women are generally paid less than a man for an equal job. Financial advantages through marriage are meant to counteract those issues. However, in gay couples at least some of those issues don't exist. So what I wonder is: Should married gay couples really recieve all or any of those priviliges? Same-sex couples often do marry because they want to adopt kids. Why shouldn't they get the same financial privileges? Also there are a lot of straight married couples without kids, too. That women get paid less is a whole different problem which has nothing to do with financial benefits a marriage couple gets (besides a couple of two women should even get more money then). So yes, they should receive all of those privileges. Most of the people who are against same-sex marriage would not accept that argument, because they are also totally against those couples being able to adopt. Which has always struck me as the most ludicrous thing about the whole issue, since there are so many kids stuck in the system. It shocks me that these self-proclaimed "family values" people would rather see these kids rot in the system than be adopted by loving parents just because they are gay. As for the tax breaks, they are not founded on the concepts you mention, they were founded in the era when women did not work at all. The breaks were designed so that one man's income could better support his wife and children. And that is still perfectly valid in a same-sex marriage, since one partner may want to be a stay-at-home parent for the adopted children. Prejudice like this commonly makes one blind. Being against same-sex marriage makes you prejudiced. There is no logical, legal, philosophical, secular morally-binding methodology to justify being against same-sex marriage. It's commonly a deeply seeded prejudice that has to do with their religious views and/or upbringing. Your religious views or what irks you doesn't give you the right to deny others of rights.
I concur. They're not my views though.
Oh, and separation of church and state is a total farce. While technically a part of our laws, all non-religious arguments against same-sex marriage are spurious, thinly-veiled attempts by people to make their position seem like it's not based on religion. In reality, at least in the U.S., most people are against it because they have been brought up by the church to believe that it is evil. Regrettably, this religious population does still make up the majority of the voting adults, and their senators very much want to be reelected.
Despite the fact that not all Christians are Catholic, it really does come down to the Catholic Church's adamant refusal to adapt. I've seen many other sects of Christianity who either don't care, or wholeheartedly embrace the same-sex members of their congregations. Sadly, the Catholic church is generally seen as representative of the religion, at least in the eyes of the government.
|
On July 15 2010 23:32 Keniji wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 23:15 ggrrg wrote:
In principle I don't see a reason why homosexuals shouldn't express their affection for eachother by getting married. However, when you think about it marriage doesn't only mean that you are allowed to have a big celebration, but also comes with many financial priviliges that are meant to encourage couples to be together and get children (e.g. tax cuts, money when you get a child, lower insurance rates, etc.). Most of those financial priviliges exist because for a family it means that they will lose income during the wife's pregnancy and while the child is very young. On top of that women are generally paid less than a man for an equal job. Financial advantages through marriage are meant to counteract those issues. However, in gay couples at least some of those issues don't exist. So what I wonder is: Should married gay couples really recieve all or any of those priviliges? Same-sex couples often do marry because they want to adopt kids. Why shouldn't they get the same financial privileges? Also there are a lot of straight married couples without kids, too. That women get paid less is a whole different problem which has nothing to do with financial benefits a marriage couple gets (besides a couple of two women should even get more money then). So yes, they should receive all of those privileges.
Well, when a gay couple adopts a child they have skipped the 9-month pregnancy. If the child is not a newborn they have eventually skipped the first 9-12 months of the child's upbringing, which is a critical period in which a women cannot work. Thus such gay couples wouldn't suffer the loss of income a "normal" couple would have. In addition a women that gets out for pregnancy has severely diminished chances of being promoted (making a career) than both partners in a gay couple that can work without a break, when adopting (this also applies to lesbian couples, unless one of the partners gets artificially impregnated).
Ultimately, I don't know what would be the best legislature on gay marriage. I agree that homosexual relationships should be accepted and not viewed as wrong. However, in many cases it seems difficult to justify all of the financial benefits gays would get by having a standard marriage. Maybe there should be special legislation on gay marriage taking different factors in consideration (e.g. female or a men couple).
|
17050 Posts
On July 15 2010 23:49 aseq wrote:Don't couples receive those privileges to be in a prime position to start a family with kids? I thought the government promoted family life this way. So if gay couples are going to do that (through adoption or artificial insemination for lesbians) im fine with that. But I also think the concept of marriage as we know it is a christian event, and I think it's hypocrite to let gays marry in church, when the religion itself is against it. The two (state marriage and church marriage) should be treated separately. If you ask me, having gay parents isn't really the best situation for kids either (gl in high school, son of a fairy ), but it can be a lot better than the situation they would be in otherwise.
The billions of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc. in the world would like a word with you :/
EDIT: And what about sects of Christianity which condone gay marriage?
|
On July 15 2010 23:51 ggrrg wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 23:32 Keniji wrote:On July 15 2010 23:15 ggrrg wrote:
In principle I don't see a reason why homosexuals shouldn't express their affection for eachother by getting married. However, when you think about it marriage doesn't only mean that you are allowed to have a big celebration, but also comes with many financial priviliges that are meant to encourage couples to be together and get children (e.g. tax cuts, money when you get a child, lower insurance rates, etc.). Most of those financial priviliges exist because for a family it means that they will lose income during the wife's pregnancy and while the child is very young. On top of that women are generally paid less than a man for an equal job. Financial advantages through marriage are meant to counteract those issues. However, in gay couples at least some of those issues don't exist. So what I wonder is: Should married gay couples really recieve all or any of those priviliges? Same-sex couples often do marry because they want to adopt kids. Why shouldn't they get the same financial privileges? Also there are a lot of straight married couples without kids, too. That women get paid less is a whole different problem which has nothing to do with financial benefits a marriage couple gets (besides a couple of two women should even get more money then). So yes, they should receive all of those privileges. Well, when a gay couple adopts a child they have skipped the 9-month pregnancy. If the child is not a newborn they have eventually skipped the first 9-12 months of the child's upbringing, which is a critical period in which a women cannot work. Thus such gay couples wouldn't suffer the loss of income a "normal" couple would have. In addition a women that gets out for pregnancy has severely diminished chances of being promoted (making a career) than both partners in a gay couple that can work without a break, when adopting (this also applies to lesbian couples, unless one of the partners gets artificially impregnated). Ultimately, I don't know what would be the best legislature on gay marriage. I agree that homosexual relationships should be accepted and not viewed as wrong. However, in many cases it seems difficult to justify all of the financial benefits gays would get by having a standard marriage. Maybe there should be special legislation on gay marriage taking different factors in consideration (e.g. female or a men couple).
Again, see above. The laws predate the relatively modern convention that both parents work, and are from a time where women did not work at all.
Moreover, having separate laws governing the same thing has never, ever worked well at any point in history, regardless of whether or not it makes sense. It's just a bad move, because it generates unrest amongst the segments of the population that get the worse deal. Basically, until the laws are equal, the lobbying to change it is never going to end.
|
On July 15 2010 23:12 Empyrean wrote:
And I'd agree with you here, but America is a much more socially conservative country than Germany is, and there are millions of people who will zealously defend marriage as a "religious institution" specifically between a "man and a woman."
make no mistake here, gay marriage is not legal in germany!!!
|
United States12607 Posts
American law looking more and more backwards on this issue.
|
On July 15 2010 23:51 ggrrg wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 23:32 Keniji wrote:On July 15 2010 23:15 ggrrg wrote:
In principle I don't see a reason why homosexuals shouldn't express their affection for eachother by getting married. However, when you think about it marriage doesn't only mean that you are allowed to have a big celebration, but also comes with many financial priviliges that are meant to encourage couples to be together and get children (e.g. tax cuts, money when you get a child, lower insurance rates, etc.). Most of those financial priviliges exist because for a family it means that they will lose income during the wife's pregnancy and while the child is very young. On top of that women are generally paid less than a man for an equal job. Financial advantages through marriage are meant to counteract those issues. However, in gay couples at least some of those issues don't exist. So what I wonder is: Should married gay couples really recieve all or any of those priviliges? Same-sex couples often do marry because they want to adopt kids. Why shouldn't they get the same financial privileges? Also there are a lot of straight married couples without kids, too. That women get paid less is a whole different problem which has nothing to do with financial benefits a marriage couple gets (besides a couple of two women should even get more money then). So yes, they should receive all of those privileges. Well, when a gay couple adopts a child they have skipped the 9-month pregnancy. If the child is not a newborn they have eventually skipped the first 9-12 months of the child's upbringing, which is a critical period in which a women cannot work. Thus such gay couples wouldn't suffer the loss of income a "normal" couple would have. In addition a women that gets out for pregnancy has severely diminished chances of being promoted (making a career) than both partners in a gay couple that can work without a break, when adopting (this also applies to lesbian couples, unless one of the partners gets artificially impregnated). Ultimately, I don't know what would be the best legislature on gay marriage. I agree that homosexual relationships should be accepted and not viewed as wrong. However, in many cases it seems difficult to justify all of the financial benefits gays would get by having a standard marriage. Maybe there should be special legislation on gay marriage taking different factors in consideration (e.g. female or a men couple).
there are 2 or 3 persons who posted after me with way more logical and reasonable explanations what marriage is based on and what the financial aids are for. They also explained very nicely why they should apply to same-sex couples too.
|
17050 Posts
On July 15 2010 23:57 party wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 23:12 Empyrean wrote:
And I'd agree with you here, but America is a much more socially conservative country than Germany is, and there are millions of people who will zealously defend marriage as a "religious institution" specifically between a "man and a woman." make no mistake here, gay marriage is not legal in germany!!!
Right, but Germans are, on a population level, much more socially liberal than Americans are. Compare your healthcare system, for example, to the millions of Americans who are scared that a government option for health insurance is an unacceptable form of socialism that'll turn America into a fascist country (I'm not making this up).
EDIT: Also population acceptance of man-made global warming (not even a social issue...it's a scientific issue here), women's rights in abortion, etc. On virtually every contentious issue, the German population is much more socially liberal than the American population is.
|
On July 15 2010 23:57 JWD wrote:American law looking more and more backwards on this issue.
Heh, it has nothing to do with law, since there is not actually anything on the books that prevents same-sex marriage. It has everything to do with the large segment of the population that is rabidly against it, and their senators caring more about getting reelected than resolving issues. But that's the way it's always been. For small stuff, resolution is possible, for the big stuff, everyone just talks endlessly about it until someone has the balls to actually fix the problem.
|
This is one of those things that just makes me embarrassed to be human. We can put a man on the moon, but we can't define marriage.
|
This kind of stuff just makes me so depressed. There are millions of people out there without a home, education, job, healthcare, etc, and the government wastes time debating if 2 people should be allowed to be happy without affecting anyone else?
Good for Argentina though, just more examples of how the US can still take lessons from other countries.
|
On July 15 2010 23:49 aseq wrote:Don't couples receive those privileges to be in a prime position to start a family with kids? I thought the government promoted family life this way. So if gay couples are going to do that (through adoption or artificial insemination for lesbians) im fine with that. But I also think the concept of marriage as we know it is a christian event, and I think it's hypocrite to let gays marry in church, when the religion itself is against it. The two (state marriage and church marriage) should be treated separately. If you ask me, having gay parents isn't really the best situation for kids either (gl in high school, son of a fairy ), but it can be a lot better than the situation they would be in otherwise.
This is something I see fairly often that needs to be addressed. You yourself point out in the next sentence that state marriage and church marriage should be treated separately. That's exactly how it works now, and it's exactly how it will continue to work after gay marriage is legalized.
Legalizing gay marriage does nothing to churches that don't want to marry gay people, they can continue to do so. What it does allow is for gay couples to become married in the eyes of the law, granting certain benefits, rights and responsibilities.
No religion is being forced to marry gay couples.
Also there are various church denominations out there that already are open to marrying gay couples as others have pointed out.
On July 15 2010 23:49 aseq wrote:If you ask me, having gay parents isn't really the best situation for kids either (gl in high school, son of a fairy ), but it can be a lot better than the situation they would be in otherwise.
And here you're just being prejudiced. Son of a fairy? Wow. In a thread like this you should probably refrain from posting statements like that and learn to debate properly.
|
United States12607 Posts
On July 16 2010 00:02 BillyMole wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 23:57 JWD wrote:American law looking more and more backwards on this issue. Heh, it has nothing to do with law, since there is not actually anything on the books that prevents same-sex marriage.
What? Many states have laws that specify marriage is between a man and a woman. The Federal government has no authority to make such a law, but has done its part with the Defense of Marriage Act, which provides that states do not have to recognize other states' same-sex marriages. Furthermore we have a Supreme Court that has held (if in dicta) that the Constitution does not invalidate same-sex marriage bans. So yes, American law is quite backwards on same-sex marriage.
Even if there was nothing on the books to get in the way of same-sex marriage, this issue would still have to do with the law because the only way to get same-sex marriage in some (especially Red) states in the foreseeable future is through some Supreme Court decision or Federal statute.
|
On July 16 2010 00:00 Empyrean wrote:
Right, but Germans are, on a population level, much more socially liberal than Americans are. Compare your healthcare system, for example, to the millions of Americans who are scared that a government option for health insurance is an unacceptable form of socialism that'll turn America into a fascist country (I'm not making this up).
EDIT: Also population acceptance of man-made global warming (not even a social issue...it's a scientific issue here), women's rights in abortion, etc. On virtually every contentious issue, the German population is much more socially liberal than the American population is.
all good and true examples, i just wanted to make this clear since even many germans seem to forget that in gay rights we are as backwards as you hillbillies . for example when the prop 8?9? (sorry forgot to lazy to check) was going on there were many german commentaries about the old fashioned american society, while totally blending out how "modern" ours is in this field.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
