What harm does it do? The state's role is not to legislate to only allow things that it deems positive - that way lies Big Brother - but to legislate to only prevent things that are deemed negative. The burden of proof should lie with you to show the negative, otherwise the legislation is surely fundamentally flawed.
You all might appreciate that one of the pieces of evidence offered against gay marriage was a study that showed how two-thirds of all women who identify as "lesbians" slept with both men and women during the study period. And, as evidence goes, I just think that's AWESOME!
No, you're wrong. Not legislating against something doesn't show tacit approval, it merely shows that there is no legislative disapproval. No-one's asking for the rainbow flag to sit behind the bench alongside the Stars and Stripes.
How is he wrong? A marriage certificate issued by the state is an official, legal document of recognition and approval. There is no position of indifference here. There are people who disapprove of gay marriage so no deliberate legal action made to dissolve or counter laws that reflect that disapproval could be considered neutral on the issue.
I am not the least bit wrong. What is at issue here is whether the state should be forced to treat gay marriage the same as straight marriage. Presently the state wants to differentiate, and imo there are clear policy grounds for such differentiation. Those grounds will be countered if the state is forced to treat them the same. How is that not an injury to the powers and goals of the state? I shouild add that you may disagree with the state's position that such differentiation is appropriate, or similarly that no damage in your view will result. Your position is actually based on a disagreement with the state's assessment. But the state once again is entitled to see such a difference and to follow policy accordingly.
except this gay marriage isn't a private issue, it is a public issue and is seeking to have their choices accepted and part of public life. so, the what you do in your home example simply isn't comparable by your own differentiation of public and private activities. the logical comparison would be if we were arguing whether gay sex should be allowed, something that happens behind closed doors. but we aren't.
Parents qualify for the child tax credit regardless of marital status. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00000024----000-.html That is my whole point. The benefits the government extends to parents are ostensibly independent from the benefits extended to married couples. Therefore I am left to conclude that the government favors marriage with benefits for a reason other than as it directly relates to having children. I am all for one of you guys, especially the legally inclined, to come up with the reason for the government giving preference to married couples regardless of reproductive status, because it obviously has nothing to do with children. A menopausal couple gets them. Barren couples get them. Couples that simply choose not to have children get them. The government obviously favors legally committed relationships. I am left to conclude that it must be for the psychological benefits I have mentioned throughout the thread. People that care about other people...care about other people. It's just the way it is.
Governmentally speaking (and that is what we are speaking of), the current policies make no distinction between child-rearing married couples, and married couples who do not for whatever reason. Sure, we can speak on the value of couples as they pertain to producing and/or raising children, and how you feel that affects society at large. But as far as the government laws are concerned, that is irrelevant, and so has no place in this particular discussion. What benefit does a non-reproducing heterosexual couple have over a homosexual couple in the eyes of the government (politically, not ideologically)? The flaws that you speak on exist in the ideological discussion you appear intent on having, but are very much not pertinent to a discussion of legal equality.
I have a question: Do any of you believe that the large majority of people who are against gay marriage have reasons for it that are anything but religious? There is little to argue here, in my opinion. So far no one has even attempted to prove that gay marriage does any harm to society. If the exists to protect the members of society, it follows that gay marriage should be perfectly within that law. Changing laws in the US to allow gay marriage would not be tacit approval of gay marriage, not condoning it, simply acknowledging that it is not against the law.
I either don't understand what point you think you are making or cannot believe you don't see the flaw in your own reasoning. The fact that the child credit is available to unmarried couples does not mean, quite obviously, that married couples who have children get BOTH the subsidies and supports available to all married couples AND the credit available to all parents. Who in total gets the most benefits? Married couples with children. How again does this result not show that the state supports married couples with children? I don't follow you.
Agsin, married couples with children get both the child credit and benefits associated with marriage. You are factually incorrect. The question of benefit provided by a non-reproducing heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple is wrongly poised since it assumes a static situation. THe vast majority of straight couples who marry and have children do so in that order. So, for a time they are childless. Is it stupid or irrational for the state to allow them to be considered married BEFORE they actually have children? Of course it isn't. And most straight couples do have children. The fact that some don't is irrelevant when the population is viewed as a whole. In other words, there is a benefit in your analysis you are leaving out, and that is the POTENTIAL benefit that would and will be realized if they do in fact eventually have children. That some percentage never will does not undermine the purpose and goal of allowing couples to be married prior to their having children. I again don't understand why you think your point is persuasive to any extent. Again, the rational basis here is society's determination that children are better raised when born to and raised by a couple consisting of a man and a woman. Encouragement in that direction is expressed by valuing the relationship with the term marriage and along with that come certain benefits and supports. This is clear, imo. I am not sure what point you are making that counters this analysis.
But that turns the discussion on its head. Why does anyone need a reason? (beyond which, I can think of several non-religious reasons). The scope of the argument should be (from gay marriage proponents): Give a real-live reason why the traditional definition of marriage should be changed. Because it discriminates? Fine, but that just doesn't cut it. People are allowed to have preferences. 52% of the California voters expressed a preference. They don't need to write a reason next to their vote.
You have not read many posts on this thread in order to make this factually incorrect statement. Harm to society has in fact been identified above. Past post also show that yours is a false distinction between religious and other concerns. For example I am against murder for both religious and civil/social reasons. No need to draw a distinction between them, or assume that only civil/social reasons are valid.
The fact that couples with children get government incentives means that the government favors people who have children. This is flected in the tax laws. The fact that married couples get government incentives means that the government favors people who make lifetime legal cohabitation agreements. This is also reflected in the tax laws, among other policies. These two incentives are mutually exclusive. One not need qualify for one to qualify for the other. Currently, we are speaking on the topic of benefits extended to those people who fit under the second category, which exists regardless of ability or inclination to produce children, therefore, child-rearing is irrelevant to this particular discussion. Yes, the state does support married couples. Yes, the state does support people with children. If you happen to fit under both categories, then by extension, you qualify for two types of incentives. Two being more than one means that yes, you have more benefits overall. This does not, however, devalue the coupling incentive, as it is able to stand on its own. This is the basis for my argument. What benefit do non-reproducing heterosexual couples, regardless of the reason for lack of children, present that homosexual couples don't that they should receive benefits while their homosexual counterparts are left without such benefits? This is clearly a case of inequality, and should (and I believe will) be remedied in the future. I could honestly care less what a legal homosexual union is called. But until those legal unions receive the same benefits as "married" couples, there exists an inequality in our current system.
A better analogy would be if I call a Buick an Oldsmobile, does that change your Oldsmobile? Unless they prefer to marry someone of the same sex right?
Not looking for pity, I turned out fine. I found your assumption that 2 parents are better for the child than 1 incredibly insulting.
You're looking for the law to be all things to all people? Nirvana is two doors down. Fat chicks want men made of bacon. The law can't help them.
