nobody wants to look around and question the state of affairs, that would require maybe thinking negatively about something or someone, and that just isn't nice. it is ironic that progressives actually champion a regression of maturity in that they simply practice the attitude of three year old's -- we should all be able to do as we please. there is no right or wrong, just what makes me feel good. and anyone who disagrees is a religious whackjob.
Lol.... It works, and when you explode, ha, watch the fuck out, but still as the years gone by, haven't you started to use vaseline or Keri lotion? I'm just saying, we begin to put more energy into this than maybe we should.
Yer stretching that argument further than a Thai DP. The benefits of marriage exist for a purpose. Since child-rearing is not the intended purpose given that childless couples enjoy the same financial benefits as Cletus and Brandine, it must be the familial unit in general that is encouraged. Being that there is no evidence to show that a childless homo couple is any less valuable to society than a childless hetero one, there really is no good reason not to encourage the behavior.
We're married without children. My company pays for my wife's healthcare, not the government. Our standard deduction is a little bit higher than filing seperately, but not so much as to make a difference. Am I missing out on some benefits I should be aware of? I need to know what we should be reaping, we could use it. Also, the concept of marriage as a tool to grow the population doesn't make sense in traditional, religious, or modern terms. In traditional and religious terms it was always "You better be married if you're pregnant," not "You better get married so you can get pregnant." In modern terms, well, we would get a tax credit if we had a kid regardless if we were married. Again, we must be missing out on the free romantic trips and fertility perks...
What does that have to do with marriage? Do you think if gays cannot marry each other they are going to couple up with the opposite sex, push out some new taxpayers, and live happily ever after? I knew I shouldn't have installed that hot tub time machine. The 80's suck.
you can attempt to claim that is the argument and thus the logical conclusion, but the value of homosexuals to society has nothing to do with a belief that there is a right and wrong and a desire to create a society that reflects that. and if that belief runs contrary to acceptance of homosexuality, there is reason to not encourage it. I know, that makes us big meanies. but more to your point, men and women are different. you say there is no evidence that homosexual couples provide less value to society than straight couples, but the mere accusation of such defies common sense. are you to tell me that either a supernatural being or simply natural evolution created two distinct sexes, of which have behaved historically different throughout human history, and yet those differences do not provide a more complete experience when combined than a pair of the same sex? men and women provide something unique and different to our species, and thus inherently the combination is more valuable.
If that were true in the eyes of the government, then child-less couples would not receive the same benefits as their counterparts with offspring.
Sorry to hear you haven't taken advantage. I posted a link earlier in this thread that gives some good examples of the federal benefits. A lot of them have to do with sickness, hospital rights, and next of kin stuff, so thankfully, you haven't had to realize those as of yet. And historically, getting pregnant was one of the main points of marriage. Even in this country, inability to produce offspring is grounds for divorce, so there's that.
I prefer the term "ignorant bigot", but since semantics is at the heart of your argument, I won't split hairs. The value to society is in the commitment to a familial unit. There are studies showing that having a monogamous significant other increases positive choices in life, and thus more positive outcomes. Therein is the benefit to our society. It really is in our best interest to encourage all types of relationships in which the partners are forced to think beyond just themselves regardless of individual makeup. I am not advocating a single-sex race, which is what this argument appears to imply. I am merely pointing out the benefits of having two independent human beings take vows to act as one and all the positive decisions that that state of mind creates. To deny that is to ignore basic human psychology.
OK, I thought we were missing out on something. "reaping the benefits" is sort of a little over the top if your are only referring to tragic sorts of stuff. And I have to disagree to some extent. Historically, having sex without being shunned by society was the main point of marriage. Children were just the natural byproduct.
Please explain. What do married couple receive that a unmarried couple does not in terms of government tax credits, or anything else for that matter?
Damn, making me do some work. Here's the link: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-30326.html Again, just because you haven't been a party to them yet doesn't mean they won't come into play whether because of tragedy or just growing old. Kind of like having car insurance and never getting into an accident.
I dont care about religion, I thought I was clear on that. Anything that religion touches generally turns to shit. We are talking about marriage as a LEGAL term.
