The Rainbow TL-logo - Page 88

On June 27 2013 03:41 Shiori wrote:

If "civil unions" and "marriages" have the same rights before the law, why should the law distinguish between them? It's not like straight people own the word marriage or something. Hell, even religions don't own the word marriage. Separate but equal is inherently unequal, etc.

e.g. Let's give interracial couples all the same rights as others when it comes to marriage, but call the former "interracial marriages" and the latter just "marriages." I can't imagine anyone being happy with such a law. Why do we need to protect the feelings of people who are intolerant of something that literally doesn't affect them at all?

On June 27 2013 05:48 r.Evo wrote:

As far as I know joint adoption is the only issue that's still on the table where it differs from a "real" marriage.

On June 27 2013 05:55 Klondikebar wrote:


You "know" incorrectly. Back to the researching sir.

On June 27 2013 05:33 karpotoss wrote:


Does it make me an asshole if i oppose equal rights to polygamy?

Also this i feel like this article is pretty good: http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage
Adam Kolasinski

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 two 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-reading 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 social 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 can 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 than 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.

Tl,Dr - marriage is an institution regulated by country to support the fuel of every society- another generations of people

On June 27 2013 06:02 Klondikebar wrote:


Well, for one, how about the case that actually brought DOMA before the Supreme Court? Federal Estate tax? It's a shame you wrote that big old post before like...even checking the last two pages of this thread.

On June 26 2013 11:50 LarJarsE wrote:
Quite frankly, if you are against equality & equal rights, you are an asshole.

On June 27 2013 05:46 Klondikebar wrote:


In short: Yes
In long: Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

Seriously why the hell are we still trotting out this semantic argument in a thread which has addressed it countless times. Read even the last two pages of a thread before you run your mouth please.

On June 27 2013 06:13 Acer.Scarlett` wrote:

I'm pretty sure they're talking about Germany not the USofA

On June 27 2013 06:13 Acer.Scarlett` wrote:

I'm pretty sure they're talking about Germany not the USofA

On June 27 2013 06:15 Klondikebar wrote:


Fair enough. Although this just brings up the point ok, if Civil Unions are identical to Marriages why do they need a different word? Separate but equal is never really equal.

On June 27 2013 06:12 PCloadletter wrote:

You don't seem to understand, you have it backwards. "Equal rights" is the semantic argument. It is an argument based entirely on chosen words and a very limited way of defining them. The people who point out the obvious flaws in the argument are using actual arguments, not semantics.

On June 27 2013 06:20 Plansix wrote:


Saying that it could lead to "marital chaos" is not an argument. I don't know what that is, but gay people getting married doesn't cause it. Saying "Marriage should lead to babies" is not an argument, either. Arguing that they get to define the word and then they can decided who is applies to is not an argument either.

On June 27 2013 06:15 Klondikebar wrote:


Fair enough. Although this just brings up the point ok, if Civil Unions are identical to Marriages why do they need a different word? Separate but equal is never really equal.

On June 27 2013 06:21 codonbyte wrote:

That's what I've been saying all along. Having a separate word for two things that are the same is useful for only one purpose: discriminating against the minority group. If you aren't intending to discriminate against gay people, then there is literally no reason why you should want to have a separate word.

On June 27 2013 06:20 Plansix wrote:


Saying that it could lead to "marital chaos" is not an argument. I don't know what that is, but gay people getting married doesn't cause it. Saying "Marriage should lead to babies" is not an argument, either. Arguing that they get to define the word and then they can decided who is applies to is not an argument either.

On June 27 2013 06:24 Shodaa wrote:


Agreed. I'm not an expert but what I'm afraid of is that if we separate the two, we could end up in a situation where new rights/benefits are added to one but not the other (or some removed) because of opposition, etc.

I think it is safer to use one term so that it stays equal.

On June 27 2013 06:32 PCloadletter wrote:

Well I didn't post that article, somebody else did. I agree, those aren't good arguments. The argument that was responded to was "does it make me an asshole to oppose polygamy?" Starting to wonder if it is possible to say anything without getting shoved into one side and straw manned.