Well said.

Glad he didn't say "just wait, it will come some day."

Some of us are tired of waiting for justice.

And some of us are sick of the spineless bastards who tell us to wait anyway, because it's "for the best."

Outstanding. The truth is extremely powerful when it is spoken in such a direct but respectful way.

I hope we see more moments like this in 2009.

As a general sentiment, Those who lead and make decisions in our world, come from a generation where their ideals, and prejudices - are no longer relevant.

Racism, Sexism, Homophobia, Anti-Muslim, Antisemitism, Nationalism, Communism, Capitalism, Political Correctness, Anti-Political correctness.

They're all failed 20th century beliefs and concepts.

They just aren't relevant to the next generation growing up in the globalized commercial world.

i'm making a lasagne

almost made me cry.

>> ^deputydog:
i'm making a lasagne


I am thinking about a friend of mine, who you dont know, who is dying - thats right dying!!

that was nice

Yay, progression!

M'eh - another moron liar politician making up bull-crap stories to sell his point of view. Nothing to see here. The defense of traditional marriage has very little to do with cabals of old conservative guys who are homophobes. That is a strawman that pro-gay advocates set up every time they try to push thier agenda.

Defense of traditional marriage is more about making sure laws do not infringe on the rights and standards of people who are not gay. The problem with the gay community is in thier zeal and fervor to get what they want they always far over-reach the boundry of fairness with their proposals. Defenders of traditional marriage try to change the vague, hazy language of proposed laws into something concrete. They do this for the purpose of making sure the laws cannot be used as bludgeons on people who do not agree with the gay lifestyle. But the militant gay advocates refuse to make the changes.

End result - because the gay community is not willing to compromise the laws they propose always go down in flames. And they always will until they learn to compromise and allow defenders of traditional marriage the right to morally object to thier lifestyle.

Examples, please, of theoretical gay marriage legislation that could be used to 'bludgeon' people in some unconstitutional way.

Bear in mind, these are people that have been bludgeoned for centuries the old-fashioned way by 'people who do not agree with the gay lifestyle.'

The majority of people that oppose gay marriage laws don't do it because they hate gays. They do it so marriage doesn't get co-opted. Such persons typically have no real problem with gay unions as long as that union is a wholly civil performance. Alas, that is not what typically gets served up. Gay marriage laws to date adopt into 'marriage', which is inherently a religious ceremony. That's what Prop 8 was all about.

I very much see why people who believe homosexuality is morally wrong do not want the concept of 'marriage' being expanded to define gay couples. Such a change would be used to try and force churches that morally object to gay marriage into the act of performing gay weddings or risk lawsuits and other legal reprisals. So they oppose the laws because a clearly-worded alternative which does not threaten thier moral freedom is not on the table.

He forgot the last line his daughter (was probably thinking):
"We're just waiting for you to die."

I've never really got it. Is the term marriage like a religious thing? Obviously the word isn't, but the sentiment attached to the word. So my mum and dad are married, and it was done by a priest, so i assume it is under some religion revolving around jesus christ. But it's also seen in a legal and traditional sense where they are viewed in a certain way by people, and they get certain benefits by being "married".

So is it ok for a RELIGION to say "Well, no.. you can't get married under my religion cos you're gay, and that's not ohw it works?" I assume it is. It's like someone telling me i can't go to heaven cos i don't believe in god. Or telling me i can't go into a woman's toilet cos i'm a man. As open minded as i am i can't see a reason why a religion shouldn't decide their own rules for their own ceremonies. Cos i can't go stomping about a church saying "I demand you let me go to heaven, just because i don't believe in God doesn't mean you can discriminate against me!" - it's their little club so it's their rules.

What i mean is, perhaps the confusion is in the word. Are people arguing about the religious sense or the traditional and legal sense?

Cos one is just like telling me i can't go to an all girl's school cos i'm a boy - which is fair enough. And the other is like telling me i can't sit at the front of a bus because i'm black - which isn't.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
The majority of people that oppose gay marriage laws don't do it because they hate gays. They do it so marriage doesn't get co-opted.

I don't like that conservatives call themselves human. Your continuing demands that I respect your rights as human beings when you're clearly not is an infringement on my rights.

You co-opt a term for yourselves that clearly doesn't apply.

It's not that I hate the movement to humanize conservatives, but in your zeal you're seeking to infringe on my right to practice my family tradition of believing that you people are all lizard people from the planet Xeen come to eat the brains of those who listen to your siren song of madness.

I mean seriously, how anti-american is that to force me to accept the humanity of a people I clearly have a tradition of demonizing?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
The majority of people that oppose gay marriage laws don't do it because they hate gays. They do it so marriage doesn't get co-opted.

Except the ones who have co-opted the definition are the ones seeking to bar gay marriage.

Gay marriage laws to date adopt into 'marriage', which is inherently a religious ceremony.

No it isn't. Marriage predates religion. The Christian religious marriage has existed for a little over two centuries, and only in certain geographic areas for certain sects of Christianity. More commonly, marriage has been a civil ceremony or a business arrangement. It's rewriting history (or just saying it really often and hoping no one looks it up) to serve an argument, 1984 style.

hear hear

I think it says a lot about our society that I could go to Vegas and marry a random woman on the street, but I don't want to get married. Yet my friend Donald has been with the same man for over a decade, and they want desperately to get married, but they can't.

All of you, stop feeding the troll.

In the U.S. there is this thing called separation of church and state. That means that when a couple gets married the state can only recognize said marriage on a secular level. If it means more to you based on religion great, but it's none of the state's business.

You can't block gay marriage based on purely religious grounds. 1st amendment aside, it's worth noting that not everyone's religion is anti-gay.

As it stands a wedding ceremony does not have to include any religious language. The officiant does not have to have any sort of religious affiliation. As long as all of the paperwork is in order the government really doesn't care.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I very much see why people who believe homosexuality is morally wrong do not want the concept of 'marriage' being expanded to define gay couples. Such a change would be used to try and force churches that morally object to gay marriage into the act of performing gay weddings or risk lawsuits and other legal reprisals.


That isn't even a real threat, it's nothing more than a scare tactic, and a sorry excuse to deny the legal protections marriage provides. Churches can already discriminate all they want. Ever heard of people converting in order to get married? Or take a look at the Mormons, they only open their facilities to certain members. You're not even allowed to attend unless they think you're up to snuff.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
End result - because the gay community is not willing to compromise the laws they propose always go down in flames. And they always will until they learn to compromise and allow defenders of traditional marriage the right to morally object to thier lifestyle.


Um....you've heard of the whole domestic partnership thing right???? That was the compromise, thing is that "separate but equal" can never be equal. It's just like having separate water fountains, or telling someone they have to sit in the back of the bus. It's not equality it's just a sorry attempt to marginalize a part of the population that works just as hard, and pays just as many taxes as anyone else.

Religious and hard-line right-wing extremists will raise that their definition of "marriage" is their religion's narrow-sighted view, and that it is the only one that should be allowed.

But the notion of individuals pairing off for mutual lifetime commitments is far older than religion or even humans themselves. Come on. "Marriage" is far older than even humanity. The mutual protection that can be afforded - early humans learned eating is safer when someone else is watching your back, as have numerous species of wild animals.

Here in CA, we're still trying very hard to make sure that the ballot initiative system won't be used by a class of citizens seeking to revoke rights of a minority population, rights which should be protected under the US Constitution's 9th amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

And quoth the first:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

In establishing a definition of marriage that is in line with what they construe their religion to teach them, the religious conservatives are dealing a heavy slap to the first and ninth amendments.

This shouldn't even be that big a deal. The founding fathers went to great lengths to prevent the kind of behavior that the right seems to be displaying today.

The idea that someone else gets to decide whether you can get married or not is insulting and obnoxious.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

^ gayest name ever.

>> ^Winstonfield_PennypackerI very much see why people who believe homosexuality is morally wrong do not want the concept of 'marriage' being expanded to define gay couples. Such a change would be used to try and force churches that morally object to gay marriage into the act of performing gay weddings or risk lawsuits and other legal reprisals.


Last time I checked a Church is a business, and as such has the right to refuse to serve anyone. So if a church doesn't want to marry gay couples they don't have too.

This is more of a tax dispute than anything. Government is only in the business of licensing marriage because we tax the heterosexually married less than we tax single people and gays, and they need licensure to enforce that. Seriously, all the people in this thread still fundamentally support a tax code that says "if you're a woman in an abusive marriage, we will penalize you the minute you get a divorce." If you truly wanted marriage to become about love again, you would create an environment in which government licensure was unnecessary.

Sorry to blow up your conservative/liberal pissing contest with libertarian logic, but I have a simple rule when it comes to taxes: the tax code should not be used as a social engineering tool to incentivize one legal behavior over another.

>> ^BansheeX:
This is more of a tax dispute than anything.
Sorry to blow up your conservative/liberal pissing contest with libertarian logic, but I have a simple rule when it comes to taxes: the tax code should not be used as a social engineering tool to incentivize one legal behavior over another.


"Libertarian Logic" - two words I've rarely seen used together, and for good reason.

I guess it escaped your purview that tax codes are not even on the list of why NOM wants to discriminate against homosexuals, or why any social conservative chooses to for that matter.

I guess "Libertarian Logic" is a euphemism for "missing the point."

>> ^BansheeX:
This is more of a tax dispute than anything. Government is only in the business of licensing marriage because we tax the heterosexually married less than we tax single people and gays, and they need licensure to enforce that. Seriously, all the people in this thread still fundamentally support a tax code that says "if you're a woman in an abusive marriage, we will penalize you the minute you get a divorce." If you truly wanted marriage to become about love again, you would create an environment in which government licensure was unnecessary.
Sorry to blow up your conservative/liberal pissing contest with libertarian logic, but I have a simple rule when it comes to taxes: the tax code should not be used as a social engineering tool to incentivize one legal behavior over another.


You're forgetting about child support, alimony and property that can be disputed before a divorce settlement can be reached. These are some of the protections gays are denied.

Sorry your tax code logic is pretty flawed.If you're a childless couple it's really not much of a difference, if anything the married couple is more likely to get screwed come tax season. If you do have children the system is set up to reward who ever has custody. If you're an abused spouse and can prove it,you'll have a better shot and getting custody of any children and recieving child support.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
The majority of people that oppose gay marriage laws don't do it because they hate gays. They do it so marriage doesn't get co-opted. Such persons typically have no real problem with gay unions as long as that union is a wholly civil performance. Alas, that is not what typically gets served up. Gay marriage laws to date adopt into 'marriage', which is inherently a religious ceremony. That's what Prop 8 was all about.
I very much see why people who believe homosexuality is morally wrong do not want the concept of 'marriage' being expanded to define gay couples. Such a change would be used to try and force churches that morally object to gay marriage into the act of performing gay weddings or risk lawsuits and other legal reprisals. So they oppose the laws because a clearly-worded alternative which does not threaten thier moral freedom is not on the table.



TOTAL FUD BULLSHIT. No church has ever been penalized for refusing to marry a gay couple.

*RAINBOW_TIE

>> ^berticus:
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

^ gayest name ever.


haha

also

"If you truly wanted marriage to become about love again, you would create an environment in which government licensure was unnecessary." - nicely put b

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
because the gay community is not willing to compromise the laws they propose always go down in flames. And they always will until they learn to compromise and allow defenders of traditional marriage the right to morally object to thier lifestyle.


So maybe they should compromise with a 3/5 compromise or something of the sort? I'm sure that would be to your liking

>> ^rougy:
"Libertarian Logic" - two words I've rarely seen used together, and for good reason.


Oh?


I guess it escaped your purview that tax codes are not even on the list of why NOM wants to discriminate against homosexuals, or why any social conservative chooses to for that matter.
I guess "Libertarian Logic" is a euphemism for "missing the point."


Swing and a miss. The tax code is not the goal, it's the means by which the goal is accomplished. The religious want to push their concept of "marriage" and marriage itself by giving tax benefits to that particular union for which licensure is required.

>> ^jwray:
You're forgetting about child support, alimony and property that can be disputed before a divorce settlement can be reached. These are some of the protections gays are denied.

No, I'm not. There are people who have children and never got licenses. There are people who live with each other and share property and never got licenses. And their disputes/divides are settled in our court system regardless, or should be. It's mostly the IRS that requires licensure, gays can't get child or marriage credits without it.

Sorry your tax code logic is pretty flawed. If you're a childless couple it's really not much of a difference, if anything the married couple is more likely to get screwed come tax season.

How so? What's the point of seeking government permission to get married then if the tax benefit is negligible? Have a ceremony, swear oaths, profess love, print up your own certificate, you don't need permission from bigots to love someone or live with someone. Licensure is meaningless if not for the fact that it creates inequity by granting superior tax status to one legal choice over another.

If you do have children the system is set up to reward who ever has custody.

If you're referring to child support, that's restitution rather than a tax. Fact is, both parents will then lose their IRS marriage credits, but why would we want to reward/penalize based on marriage status?

As for children, the more dependents you have, the more government services you use, yet the less taxes you pay. We don't want to incentivize people to have children they can't afford by using money taken from other legal behaviors, like being single, being gay, or being childless. Subsidizing one legal choice with another makes no sense and creates tremendous distractions and infighting in this country.

If you're an abused spouse and can prove it,you'll have a better shot and getting custody of any children and recieving child support.


Child support is restitution ordered by the court, it's merely a transfer payment as part of an inferred contract when the child was born. Why are you even adding a child to my scenario? Stop trying to confound the clear example I am giving you. If a marriage is loveless, abusive, dishonest, or some other breakdown, the tax code says "stay in that marriage or we'll penalize you by revoking the subsidy we gave you for being heterosexually married." This is a carrot/stick system from a religious viewpoint that goes back a long ways when divorce for any reason was frowned upon and never seen as the best solution. And this is the system you still support, even when including gays as applicable for licensure. You're not going to worm your way out of this by adding a child and child support to confound the argument.

Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Bob-Dylan-The-Times-They-Are-A-Changin-1964

>> ^Zyrxil:
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
The majority of people that oppose gay marriage laws don't do it because they hate gays. They do it so marriage doesn't get co-opted.
Except the ones who have co-opted the definition are the ones seeking to bar gay marriage.
Gay marriage laws to date adopt into 'marriage', which is inherently a religious ceremony.
No it isn't. Marriage predates religion. The Christian religious marriage has existed for a little over two centuries, and only in certain geographic areas for certain sects of Christianity. More commonly, marriage has been a civil ceremony or a business arrangement. It's rewriting history (or just saying it really often and hoping no one looks it up) to serve an argument, 1984 style.


QFT

I love these guys who preach the sanctity of marriage, but don't even recognize the short history of RELIGIOUS based marriages. People have been hooking up for a far greater variety of reasons then their religious beliefs for millenia. Do you really think letting gay people get married will devastate your religious observances?

The whole sanctity of marriage (and the nuclear family) is simply 40s - 50s propaganda. The guy in the video is right. It's out-dated and simply isn't an issue anymore. The next generation is simply waiting for their time, and they are getting closer every year. Barack Obama is proof of that much. He really is the first world leader of my generation.. generation X.

Frankly, I think one of the biggest problems with our governmental system is that it lets people far past their time with ideas far to old, to stay in power.. for far to long. There need to be term limits on the all offices both federal and state.

*love

Adding video to channels (Love) - requested by notarobot.

What i mean is, perhaps the confusion is in the word. Are people arguing about the religious sense or the traditional and legal sense?

Marriage is (primarily) a religious ceremony - contrary to the opinions of some above. It was performed by religious officials of varying types far earlier than the first 'code of law' existed. The earliest codes of law and forms of government were religious in nature. It all has its roots in religious practice.

Later, the marriage relationship acquired greater legal and civil ramifications. Therein lies the conflict. The gay community wants access to the legal/civil benefits of 'marriage'. Cool. But at the same time people of faith are concerned over legal entanglements which are very likely to result unless protection is supplied.

Once you expand 'marriage' to include same-sex you open up religious organizations to potential legal prosecution at a variety of levels. It has already happened for various reasons. Such 'lifestyle lawsuits' have a risk of becoming commonplace.

There is a fringe that is serious about suing churches, people, and businesses in order to advance the 'gay agenda'. They do not represent most average 'gay' people. Average gays just want 'gay marriage' thanks. But the radical fringe isn't will not go away after 'gay marriage' laws pass. They'll keep on going because they have social, political, and monetary goals they want to advance.

These radicals may not initially be able to force churches to marry gays. But they're a movement, they are patient, and to them gay marriage is not an END - it is a 'first step'. They will use litigation as a pry bar, forcing others to spend millions defending themselves. A few concessions here... A few there... All under the auspice of 'lifestyle litigation' justified by the fact that churches perform marriages, and are discriminatory against gays.

All we need is a simple law that gives gays a civil union which provides the legal rights they're after - is seperate from marriage - and that also has specific language built in that gives churches protection against legal action. So far that law hasn't ever come up. When it does I'm sure it will have a much better chance of passing.

From M.I.T.'s The Tech publication:



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

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.

Ultimately, Winstonfield, marriage is just a word and the meaning of a word can change to mean something different to different people. I suspect the word marriage will be adopted by gay couples to describe their relationship and be fully understood by the person to whom they are speaking. And there's nothing you or the church can do about that.

As for your point about the religious construct, I think you're being paranoid. A religious group is a social construct with built-in prejudices unassociated with the government (although they do get tax exemptions, which is wrong). A gay person suing the Catholic church is akin to a black person suing the KKK for denying them membership. It's an absurd prospect.

Government recognition of marriage for certain goodies is the problem. The SSA is a $50 trillion ponzi scheme that needs to be phased out immediately, it's Medicare promises have extended far, far beyond our future capacity to meet them. The IRS needs to be replaced with a VAT or nothing. That would make this and many other social inequities disappear overnight. Groups should not be able to vote themselves things from other groups. It is a prime failure of democracy that should have been permanently addressed a long time ago in our constitution.

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.

That is a terribly narrow statement. Under that rationale people who cannot, or choose not to, have kids should not be allowed to marry. It also makes the assumption that the purpose of marriage is to perpetuate the species.

There are lots of married people who never have kids, and then are plenty of unmarried people (including homosexuals) who do have children. If marriage isn't required to have children then why even offer it in the first place?



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.

You cannot gain state death benefits through contract. You cannot prevent your deceased partner's house from being sold for taxes through contract. You cannot gain the benefits of marriage trough contract.




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.

Lets not forget women being sold as property to the highest bidder for social status. Are we a worse society for not adhering to the "traditional" marriage?


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.

There has been a lot more research since 2004. Children in loving, supportive homes do the best, even when the parents are homosexual. This was actually the subject of much evidence in the recent Iowa court case, with most (if not all) studies and evidence siding with the plaintiffs.

Also, if kids need two opposite-sex parents then why do we allow unmarried people to procreate?


Sorry, the "secular" argument here boils down to "homosexuals don't deserve equal rights because the government won't directly profit from it."

^it's worse than that. The statement:

"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."

Assumes that only behavior that the state "grants" legislation for, is allowed. What a horrible thought! If i wanted to eat a salmon-and-chocolate smoothie, would I have to wait for the government to expressly allow it, and then only if it served some "state interest"?

>> ^Psychologic:
It also makes the assumption that the purpose of marriage is to perpetuate the species.
There are lots of married people who never have kids, and then are plenty of unmarried people (including homosexuals) who do have children. If marriage isn't required to have children then why even offer it in the first place?


No, the point is that marriage is expensive to society and the government. If they're going to grant these subsidies (marriage licenses), they want to know why. They'll grant them if the probable benefit to society is greater than the cost. Heterosexual couples are likely to produce more teachers, scientists, doctors, soldiers, and tax-payers so it's worth it to society.

You cannot gain state death benefits through contract. You cannot prevent your deceased partner's house from being sold for taxes through contract. You cannot gain the benefits of marriage trough contract.

Yes, you can - look up your state's laws on wills and testaments.

Sorry, the "secular" argument here boils down to "homosexuals don't deserve equal rights because the government won't directly profit from it.

No, homosexual marriage doesn't give anything back to society but it does take from it. So until the homosexual community can show how their marriages benefit society, they shouldn't because it's a burden to the whole.

>> ^Morganth:No, the point is that marriage is expensive to society and the government. If they're going to grant these subsidies (marriage licenses), they want to know why. They'll grant them if the probable benefit to society is greater than the cost. Heterosexual couples are likely to produce more teachers, scientists, doctors, soldiers, and tax-payers so it's worth it to society.

Heterosexual couples are also more likely to produce more criminals and welfare recipients. How does that help society?


>>You cannot gain state death benefits through contract.

Yes, you can - look up your state's laws on wills and testaments.

Maybe I'm wrong on a few specifics, but there are definitely benefits that you cannot get without a legal marriage. There are military benefits, for instance, that are only applicable to a soldier's spouse.


No, homosexual marriage doesn't give anything back to society but it does take from it. So until the homosexual community can show how their marriages benefit society, they shouldn't because it's a burden to the whole.


Ok, lets go with that. I assume this means that you support restricting marriage to people who are both willing and able to procreate. If we're going to use this line of reasoning then we should include a contract that marriage benefits are only received once the married couple produces a child. If they are unable or unwilling to produce offspring then they should not be allowed to burden the state.

Or lets take it further. Marriage is not required to produce children, so why offer incentives to begin with? People are going to have children whether they are married or not, so why not abolish all marriage benefits to ease the burden on the state until heterosexuals prove that they can only procreate while involved in a state-sanctioned marriage?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
All we need is a simple law that gives gays a civil union which provides the legal rights they're after - is seperate from marriage

I agree. Furthermore, all we need is a simple law that gives blacks the legal right to ride the bus - but they'll have their own, separate black bus. Whites can ride the black bus, but not vice versa.

"No, homosexual marriage doesn't give anything back to society but it does take from it. So until the homosexual community can show how their marriages benefit society, they shouldn't because it's a burden to the whole."

That is the most disgustingly disingenuous argument I have ever read in my life.

Based on your skewed logic, the only people who should be allowed to marry are people who pass your standards of what benefits society.

So you can rule out the sterile men, or the barren women, or the elderly, or the handicapped, or anybody else who doesn't suit your preposterous preconditions.

It's another feeble example of using poor reasoning to obfuscate your naked bigotry.

>> ^BansheeX:
>> ^rougy:
"Libertarian Logic" - two words I've rarely seen used together, and for good reason.

Oh?

I guess it escaped your purview that tax codes are not even on the list of why NOM wants to discriminate against homosexuals, or why any social conservative chooses to for that matter.
I guess "Libertarian Logic" is a euphemism for "missing the point."

Swing and a miss. The tax code is not the goal, it's the means by which the goal is accomplished. The religious want to push their concept of "marriage" and marriage itself by giving tax benefits to that particular union for which licensure is required.
>> ^jwray:
You're forgetting about child support, alimony and property that can be disputed before a divorce settlement can be reached. These are some of the protections gays are denied.
No, I'm not. There are people who have children and never got licenses. There are people who live with each other and share property and never got licenses. And their disputes/divides are settled in our court system regardless, or should be. It's mostly the IRS that requires licensure, gays can't get child or marriage credits without it.
Sorry your tax code logic is pretty flawed. If you're a childless couple it's really not much of a difference, if anything the married couple is more likely to get screwed come tax season.
How so? What's the point of seeking government permission to get married then if the tax benefit is negligible? Have a ceremony, swear oaths, profess love, print up your own certificate, you don't need permission from bigots to love someone or live with someone. Licensure is meaningless if not for the fact that it creates inequity by granting superior tax status to one legal choice over another.
If you do have children the system is set up to reward who ever has custody.
If you're referring to child support, that's restitution rather than a tax. Fact is, both parents will then lose their IRS marriage credits, but why would we want to reward/penalize based on marriage status?
As for children, the more dependents you have, the more government services you use, yet the less taxes you pay. We don't want to incentivize people to have children they can't afford by using money taken from other legal behaviors, like being single, being gay, or being childless. Subsidizing one legal choice with another makes no sense and creates tremendous distractions and infighting in this country.
If you're an abused spouse and can prove it,you'll have a better shot and getting custody of any children and recieving child support.

Child support is restitution ordered by the court, it's merely a transfer payment as part of an inferred contract when the child was born. Why are you even adding a child to my scenario? Stop trying to confound the clear example I am giving you. If a marriage is loveless, abusive, dishonest, or some other breakdown, the tax code says "stay in that marriage or we'll penalize you by revoking the subsidy we gave you for being heterosexually married." This is a carrot/stick system from a religious viewpoint that goes back a long ways when divorce for any reason was frowned upon and never seen as the best solution. And this is the system you still support, even when including gays as applicable for licensure. You're not going to worm your way out of this by adding a child and child support to confound the argument.


It's flawed because it is an attempt to reduce marriage to solely a tax issue. There are more rights involved.

I can understand why you feel the tax status is unfair. As I said before it's really a minor change in status, and since I didn't make myself clear earlier, I wouldn't shed a tear if everyone held the same status.

It's not just about divorce protections. Consider hospital visitation, being able to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapacitated spouse, and the ability to inherit valuables in the event death. In the case of an unmarried couple the sick or injured partner's family can step in and essentially screw the healthy one over.

Still, choice is really at the heart of the issue.

>> ^Creature:
Swing and a miss. The tax code is not the goal, it's the means by which the goal is accomplished. The religious want to push their concept of "marriage" and marriage itself by giving tax benefits to that particular union for which licensure is required.

Then I trust we are in agreement here.

I've yet to hear the "tax code" argument being made anywhere but here.

The "Marriage is only for the usefulness of society" argument vaguely rings a bell.

And pause for a moment to see who voted against this video.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
End result - because the gay community is not willing to compromise the laws they propose always go down in flames. And they always will until they learn to compromise and allow defenders of traditional marriage the right to morally object to thier lifestyle.


We have so much in common, for I morally object to your ignorance.

I morally object to your perceived need to judge me or my friends based on your pusillanimous stature in the world.

And I scoff at your pansy-assed expectations that I will yield to your mean, little commands.

Bah, marriage should just be phased out anyway. It's a religious thing, so I have no real problem with them keeping it to themselves (it does make problems as to which religions should have it).

>> ^rougy:
>> ^Creature:
Swing and a miss. The tax code is not the goal, it's the means by which the goal is accomplished. The religious want to push their concept of "marriage" and marriage itself by giving tax benefits to that particular union for which licensure is required.
Then I trust we are in agreement here.
I've yet to hear the "tax code" argument being made anywhere but here.
The "Marriage is only for the usefulness of society" argument vaguely rings a bell.
And pause for a moment to see who voted against this video.


:🤦: Thanks. I can't believe I took the bait....

"Defense of traditional marriage is more about making sure laws do not infringe on the rights and standards of people who are not gay."

-how does marrying gay people infringe ON ANYONES rights? you're saying that it lowers the standard of marrige? I think heterosexuals did that a LOOOOONG time ago. The divorce rate is over 50%, people go through spouces like sour patch kids, and in some places a husband can rape and beat his wife legally. Talk about lowering standards, look at your parents who they raised.