Legalized polygamy next ....

[This_person]

Again, if marriage is such a benefit to society, why would we try to prevent it? Do you have statistics that prove a same-sex couple, or a polygamist family, do not enjoy those same benefits?

Besides, who's suggesting we prevent people from living how they choose? My stance is live and let live. But, if one thing has a demonstrated benefit to society, why not reward that?

 

[Toxick]

"Righteousness" has a moral implication to it. I've not offered a single moral argument.

Alright, I took it back... jeez.

Righteousness may not be le mot juste, but if there's a better word for what I'm getting at, I'm missing it.


Anyway...

However, I still have the common sense to see that, historically, traditional marriage has provided a benefit to society. I can try and do the research for you, but:
Married people have statistically higher income - more taxing from all points (income, purchases, real estate, etc.)
Married people are healthier statistically - lower medical costs to other insured in their plan/medicare/medicaid.
Married people are more likely to vote.
Married people are more likely to be involved in civic organizations.
Married people are more likely to donate to charity.

I would have to see some really trustworthy facts and figures for these claims. I don't believe the first three at all. The last two... meh.



Even still. I still reject the notion that it's OK to discriminate against various types of unions by incentivizing another specific type, even if that type is "stabilizing".

 

[Toxick]

That would not be my function. See, it's my point of view that you don't change laws unless there's a reason.

The reason is that laws shouldn't exist unless there's a compelling reason for them in the first place. If there's a stupid oppressive law on the books that serves no purpose but to be oppressive and stupid, it should be 86'ed.


Status quo for status quo's sake is not a very persuasive argument, IMO.




Anyway, I'm out.. Maybe I can pick up later.

 

[This_person]

I would have to see some really trustworthy facts and figures for these claims. I don't believe the first three at all. The last two... meh.

I went back and provided some links.

Even still. I still reject the notion that it's OK to discriminate against various types of unions by incentivizing another specific type, even if that type is "stabilizing".

So you don't think Smile, or GoodWill, or others like that should be treated differently than WalMart?

 

[This_person]

The reason is that laws shouldn't exist unless there's a compelling reason for them in the first place. If there's a stupid oppressive law on the books that serves no purpose but to be oppressive and stupid, it should be 86'ed.


Status quo for status quo's sake is not a very persuasive argument, IMO.




Anyway, I'm out.. Maybe I can pick up later.

I agree with you. You just said that the law should change if there's a reason for it to - and I agree.

 

[vraiblonde]

But, if one thing has a demonstrated benefit to society, why not reward that?

Exactly! So why are you trying to prevent people from getting married?

 

[foodcritic]

Wirelessly posted



So then the question becomes whether it's right for any govt (local or federal) to tell us what's moral...

You r really a confused person

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



It should be noted that one of the few 'tax hikes' I agree with is not giving tax breaks for marriage. I don't get why the govt seems to think one needs and incentive to marry. (...and let the jokes about how horrible marriage is so we need to get laid for it... )

It's not an incentive to marry. It's a relief of burden consistent with the lowered burden marriages are to society with respect to all other forms of unions/non-unions.

How would a hetero marriage be less of a burden? Do you have anything to back up that highly bias statement?

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

So then the question becomes whether it's right for any govt (local or federal) to tell us what's moral...

You r really a confused person

Please...elaborate...answer the question; is it right for a govt to tell us who we can or cannot love?

 

[McGinn77]

Laws should only be changed if there is something wrong with them. What is wrong with what exists?

I would call oppression "something wrong" with the law...

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

And let's all cut the fear mongering out. "If you allow gay people to marry, people will marry dogs." How about the really scary proposition? If you allow the government to take more and more rights away it's only a matter of time before they take one you care about.

Unless the citizens fight and fight hard against it EVERY government will regulate business until the government serves as a corporation and regulate morality until it serves as a church. And that's not opinion, that's not conjecture that is history.

 

[vraiblonde]

And let's all cut the fear mongering out. "If you allow gay people to marry, people will marry dogs." How about the really scary proposition? If you allow the government to take more and more rights away it's only a matter of time before they take one you care about.

Unless the citizens fight and fight hard against it EVERY government will regulate business until the government serves as a corporation and regulate morality until it serves as a church. And that's not opinion, that's not conjecture that is history.

 

[This_person]

Exactly! So why are you trying to prevent people from getting married?

I'm not. I said, show me the benefit of other-than-traditional marriages - take any area that's legalized it and show the cause-and-effect of how legalizing other-than-traditional marriages caused a positive effect, and I'll be the biggest advocate.

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



How would a hetero marriage be less of a burden? Do you have anything to back up that highly bias statement?

Taxes are the burdened being lessened. I'm not sure you understood what I was saying.

 

[This_person]

I would call oppression "something wrong" with the law...

I would agree - so it's a good thing there's no oppression.

And let's all cut the fear mongering out. "If you allow gay people to marry, people will marry dogs."

When did I ever say that? Why should I defend a position I've never advocated?

How about the really scary proposition? If you allow the government to take more and more rights away it's only a matter of time before they take one you care about.

What "right" is being taken away?

Is there a law against two (or more) people of any sex being in a committed relationship with one (or more) another? If so, then your oppression statement makes sense. If not, nothing you're suggesting here is based in reality.

Unless the citizens fight and fight hard against it EVERY government will regulate business until the government serves as a corporation and regulate morality until it serves as a church. And that's not opinion, that's not conjecture that is history.

Again, show me the "moral" argument I've made, and I'll defend what you're suggesting. Otherwise, you're picking a fight with someone else, because I've not suggested the things you're asking me to defend.

 

[This_person]

I don't know who McGinn is arguing with, but none of the arguments presented have anything to do with my position.

Please, if we're going to discuss this, keep to what we're discussing and not answer the arguments you want me to be making.

 

[UNA]

Taxes are the burdened being lessened. I'm not sure you understood what I was saying.

Your right, I did have trouble understanding what you meant in that post (I think there were some commas missing...)

So you meant that hetero marriage receive tax breaks because hetero marriages help society; so it's like payment? How do hetero marriages help society?

 

[McGinn77]

I'm not. I said, show me the benefit of other-than-traditional marriages - take any area that's legalized it and show the cause-and-effect of how legalizing other-than-traditional marriages caused a positive effect, and I'll be the biggest advocate.

Divorce Rates per 1000 for States that allow Same Sex Unions:

• Mass. - 1.8
• D.C. - 2.1
• Col. - 4.2
• Minn. - 2.8
• Del. - 3.8
• Hi. - 3.7
• Ill - 2.6
• Ore. - 3.5

Divorce Rates per 1000 for States with a specific law forbidding Same Sex Unions:

• Ark. - 5.6
• Ala. - 4.2
• W. Va. - 5.0
• Wyo. - 5.2
• Id. - 5.0
• Okl. - 4.6
• Ky. - 4.6
• Miss. - 4.2

And how about this. It's America you get to do whatever you want as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others. That should be the only argument I need.

 

[This_person]

Divorce Rates per 1000 for States that allow Same Sex Unions:

• Mass. - 1.8
• D.C. - 2.1
• Col. - 4.2
• Minn. - 2.8
• Del. - 3.8
• Hi. - 3.7
• Ill - 2.6
• Ore. - 3.5

Divorce Rates per 1000 for States with a specific law forbidding Same Sex Unions:

• Ark. - 5.6
• Ala. - 4.2
• W. Va. - 5.0
• Wyo. - 5.2
• Id. - 5.0
• Okl. - 4.6
• Ky. - 4.6
• Miss. - 4.2

And how about this. It's America you get to do whatever you want as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others. That should be the only argument I need.

Can you show me the cause/effect of same-sex unions on the divorce rate? For example, what were the releative divorce rates prior to allowing same-sex unions? Or, did you not think through your blather?

As for infringing on the rights of others - whose rights are being infringed? All people have to do is meet the definition of married to get married. Sexual orientation is not taken into account, religion is not taken into account....please, tell me whose rights are being infringed.

 

[UNA]

As for infringing on the rights of others - whose rights are being infringed? All people have to do is meet the definition of married to get married. Sexual orientation is not taken into account, religion is not taken into account....please, tell me whose rights are being infringed.

OK...Does every state allow a homosexual couple to marry EXACTLY as they allow a heterosexual couple; with the EXACT same rights after the union?
I.E.

• Does each group get the tax breaks?
• Can each group carry their spouse on their health insurance (since private health insurance companies allow married people to carry their spouses, govt recognition would imply the same would apply to homosexual marriages)?
• Can each group speak for their spouse in the hospital?
• Does each group gain ownership of property of their spouse, usually causing problems upon the death of a spouse? (pre-nups excluded for simplicity's sake)
• Does each group retain guardianship of adopted children upon the death of a spouse?

I know marriage laws (and therefore benefits) are different in most states but as far as I know, these are generally universal benefits. And maybe heterosexual couples shouldn't get these benefits JUST by getting married...fine...make me fill out forms too...:shrug:

 

[This_person]

OK...Does every state allow a homosexual couple to marry EXACTLY as they allow a heterosexual couple; with the EXACT same rights after the union?

Yes. If you meet the definition of marriage, you can get married, and all marriages have the same rights. If you don't meet the definition of marriage, you can't get married, and therefore you don't get legally married.