NY: Homosexuals Win but Society Loses

[McGinn77]

So, what is the point of any tax break of any kind?

For example, should companies benefit from providing benefits to their employees by taking tax breaks? Or, from buying new equipment? Should a person be given a tax break for a charitable donation?

These are the realities of virtually all tax breaks - they're for things that benefit society as a whole in some fashion. You'd do away with all of that?Does this also discriminate against multiple partnered relationships? Incestuous relationships? Pedophile relationships?

Or, are only some lines okay to draw, but not all the ones that have been a part of American society since there was a United States?

uhh, I'm in a 2 income, no child marriage, there is not tax break because there is no dependent.

 

[This_person]

Ok.

While we're on that subject, who the #### said the government was entitled to my hard earned money anyway. I never signed up to be robbed every week.

The concept of a tax breaks makes me sick, because it's that arrogant mindset that if I conform to certain behaviors, I get to be allowed to keep the goddam money I worked for in the first place. Pffff - that very concept disgusts me.

Okay, I see your point.

But, that's not the reality we live in. Tanks and aircraft carriers and unemployment checks and health-care-for-all-whether-you-like-it-or-not and first family overseas vacations and golf courses all cost money. We are bound to provide that money.

We take less from those who use the money the way we think is better for society (charitable organizations, companies purchasing new equipment, etc). This is the reality in which we reside.

So, if you believe there should never be any tax break of any kind for anything, that argument is moot. We're left with there being no real reason to have the government recognize any relationship. Again, I'd be for that more than recognizing relationships for what they're not.

Yup.



Yup.

Most of us would not prefer to provide the same recognition to those types of arrangements because of the lack of benefit to society they bring.

BING! And there it is!


Personally, I am talking about consenting human adults.

Well, the reason I gave the list I did is because I was talking about the list of things that make up the current definition of married: number and sex of those involved, relationship to each other already, age......

Why do you pick just one of those things as acceptable to recognize, but not the others?

Or should we bring bestiality and necrophiliacs into the mix as well to reinforce your point? How about raping the developmentally disabled! That's the same thing as being gay too, right!

I don't believe the concept of bestiality, nor necrophilia, is "the same as being gay" any more than I think same-sex relationships are the same as traditional marriage. You're now the third person to bring up bestiality - are you all locals to southern Maryland with a past the rest of us don't know about?

I don't equate all of those relationships as equals. I'm merely suggesting that the things I listed are already part of the definition of marriage. I have to admit I didn't consider bestiality, or necrophilia. I assumed we were talking just citizens under the law.

however, I do believe developmentally disabled people can marry. I guess i should have considered rape, though, since one of the requirements for marriage is that both parties are willing. So, based on your answers above, I can assume you feel this type of definition of marriage also discriminates against rapists?

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



Never said target was bailed out. But I seem to recall other big businesses being bailed out...

You cannot equate Target and Good Will to marriage; I don't really know how on earth you arrived at that comparison. One is a for profit business, the other is a charitable organization. They're apples and oranges and no, I don't think the govt should be in the business of supporting either; they're private enterprises.

The government doesn't "support" either, but they do make one an offer they don't make the other.

See, GoodWill provides a net benefit to society above that of Target. They provide low cost goods via donations to help out those of lower financial means. Because of this higher benefit to society, they are taxed differently and recognized differently than Target, and that is to the advantage of Good Will (which, in turn, is an adavantage to society at large). This is not to say that Target is not good and fine and all that, and it's not to say one must be in the lower income brackets to use GoodWill or donate to Good Will.

It just means that, even though they do essentially the same thing, they are treated differently (the definition of their type of business is different) by the government, and the way they're taxed and other minor "perks" are different for each similar type of business.

Now, let's take marriage. One type of marriage has been known for centuries to be a stabilizing and overall positive force for society. That's not to say that other types of relationships are not good and fine an dall that, and it's not to say that one must be of a certain sexual orientation to be involved in any of the types of relationships.

It just means that, even though they mary appear to be essentially the same thing, they are treated differently (the definition of the type of relationship) by the government, and the way they're taxed an dother minor "perks" are different for these similar but different types of relationships.

Does that help clear up how I see this comparison?

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



I didn't ask whether or not you support gay marriage. I asked why it should be treated differently. You can't repeal our hypothetical gay marriage recognition laws just because YOU see no reason for it. If I can't say "there should be a gay marriage law just because I see no reason not to" then you certainly don't get to say the opposite.

I would be against the law if it existed. I've now said that twice. I'm not sure what you're looking for in a response.

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



And what benifit to society does MY heterosexual marriage serve again? I know I would remember if I would have had to prove one :shrug:

See, that's just it. Each person (or couple) does not have to prove it, nor is it a promise that each individual marriage is a benefit to society. Centuries of knowledge have proven that the idea, statistically, helps society. YOUR marriage may or may not individually, but statistically you being married is likely to help society overall.

Many countries have had these relaxations of the definition of marriage for some time. how did they fare?

 

[This_person]

you asked for one example...done.

Anecdotal evidence is not what I sought. I seek peer reviewed studies over time of the overall benefit of the institution of same-sex relationships on society.

 

[McGinn77]

Anecdotal evidence is not what I sought. I seek peer reviewed studies over time of the overall benefit of the institution of same-sex relationships on society.

Why, there is no evidence of that for straight people. Anything you point to deals with monogamy not the actual institution of marriage. What studies have been done? 2 parent household, well that is monogamy not marriage, stable household, again monogamy.

Monogamy is the benefit to society so since gay couples are already doing that there is no valid reason to not call it a marriage.

 

[McGinn77]

Anecdotal evidence is not what I sought. I seek peer reviewed studies over time of the overall benefit of the institution of same-sex relationships on society.

You also create your own catch 22. I would agree to it if there was evidence, but you can't get evidence because I won't agree to it.

You basically say, I'll agree that it's raining outside if you can prove it, but you can't go outside and find out.

Because of that, a logical person is forced to say, there is no evidence it is harmful so it must be allowed or there will never be evidence either way.

 

[This_person]

Why, there is no evidence of that for straight people. Anything you point to deals with monogamy not the actual institution of marriage. What studies have been done?

Actually studies have been done based on marriage, not sexual orientation.

Charlotte A. Schoenborn, "Marital Status and Health: United States, 1999-2002," Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Number 351, December 15, 2004) is a good start to read on marriage positively effecting emotional and physical health. Obviously, if people are emotionally and physically healthier, they are less of a drain on society. It also shows married people drink and smoke less. All of these things are true regardless of any other criteria (age, race, etc) you put on the study.

Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially (New Yorkoubleday, 2000) 50-52. This will tell you married people commit suicide at a much lower rate. Pages 97-123 break down income, and show married people are likely to be of higher income (more tax money, less of a drain).

Married people are more likely to vote, get involved in civic organizations, and be more involved in their local churches. See Corey L.M. Keyes, "Social Civility in the United States," Sociological Inquiry 72 (2002): 393-408, as cited in The Family in America New Research, November 2002. Also, Carl L. Bankston III and Min Zhou, "Social Capital as Process: The Meaning and Problems of a Theoretical Metaphor," Sociological Inquiry 72 (2002): 285-317, as cited in The Family in America New Research, December 2002.

I can go on and on, but, you get the picture.

2 parent household, well that is monogamy not marriage, stable household, again monogamy.

Monogamy is the benefit to society so since gay couples are already doing that there is no valid reason to not call it a marriage.

Please provide the studies that show monogamous cohabitation provides the same as marriage. The studies cited above (most of them) compare against monogamous cohabitation, and that falls short of marriage.

 

[McGinn77]

Actually studies have been done based on marriage, not sexual orientation.

Charlotte A. Schoenborn, "Marital Status and Health: United States, 1999-2002," Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Number 351, December 15, 2004) is a good start to read on marriage positively effecting emotional and physical health. Obviously, if people are emotionally and physically healthier, they are less of a drain on society. It also shows married people drink and smoke less. All of these things are true regardless of any other criteria (age, race, etc) you put on the study.

Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially (New Yorkoubleday, 2000) 50-52. This will tell you married people commit suicide at a much lower rate. Pages 97-123 break down income, and show married people are likely to be of higher income (more tax money, less of a drain).

Married people are more likely to vote, get involved in civic organizations, and be more involved in their local churches. See Corey L.M. Keyes, "Social Civility in the United States," Sociological Inquiry 72 (2002): 393-408, as cited in The Family in America New Research, November 2002. Also, Carl L. Bankston III and Min Zhou, "Social Capital as Process: The Meaning and Problems of a Theoretical Metaphor," Sociological Inquiry 72 (2002): 285-317, as cited in The Family in America New Research, December 2002.

I can go on and on, but, you get the picture.Please provide the studies that show monogamous cohabitation provides the same as marriage. The studies cited above (most of them) compare against monogamous cohabitation, and that falls short of marriage.

links?

 

[This_person]

You also create your own catch 22. I would agree to it if there was evidence, but you can't get evidence because I won't agree to it.

You basically say, I'll agree that it's raining outside if you can prove it, but you can't go outside and find out.

Because of that, a logical person is forced to say, there is no evidence it is harmful so it must be allowed or there will never be evidence either way.

Not a single tihng you said in this entire post is true.

I said I will agree to the evidence, and even said that there are countries out there that have legalized same-sex relationships as equal to actual marriage. How has that turned out, I asked.

I ask you for actual data, not anecdotal stories. For every anecdote you provide, i could provide a counter. That is meaningless. Real studies, statistics, etc., are what are required.

 

[This_person]

links?

Some research has to be done for real, not just linking or reading MSNBC.

Here's a link to it all.

 

[Toxick]

Again, I'd be for that more than recognizing relationships for what they're not.

It has no business in unions whether by promotion or discouragement.

Most of us would not prefer to provide the same recognition to those types of arrangements because of the lack of benefit to society they bring.

I disagree.

I believe that personal liberty trumps societal desires. Hard.

Why do you pick just one of those things as acceptable to recognize, but not the others?

I believe I mentioned the term "Consenting adults". Repeatedly. And it keeps being overlooked.

Children, animals, dead people, etc... are incapable of informed consent.

You're now the third person to bring up bestiality

I have to admit I didn't consider bestiality, or necrophilia. I assumed we were talking just citizens under the law.

You brought up pedophilia - which is a predatory behavior that targets one unable to consent.

Thus the comparison with the other *philias.

I figured you'd be able to noodle that through.

So, based on your answers above, I can assume you feel this type of definition of marriage also discriminates against rapists?

You can assume that if you'd like, if you want to misrepresent what I've said on a fairly large order of magnitude: considering my argument centers around consent. As far as I'm aware the definition of rape does not imply consenting partners.

Do I think rapists should be banned from marriage for life?

No, actually. Not if they find an consenting partner.

 

[McGinn77]

Some research has to be done for real, not just linking or reading MSNBC.

Here's a link to it all.

Ok, you won't provide your evidence so we are done. What's the matter, you to afraid it won't stand on it's own?

Lawyers have to present evidence for review and we are talking law here so....

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



Never said target was bailed out. But I seem to recall other big businesses being bailed out...

You cannot equate Target and Good Will to marriage; I don't really know how on earth you arrived at that comparison. One is a for profit business, the other is a charitable organization. They're apples and oranges and no, I don't think the govt should be in the business of supporting either; they're private enterprises.

The government doesn't "support" either, but they do make one an offer they don't make the other.

See, GoodWill provides a net benefit to society above that of Target. They provide low cost goods via donations to help out those of lower financial means. Because of this higher benefit to society, they are taxed differently and recognized differently than Target, and that is to the advantage of Good Will (which, in turn, is an adavantage to society at large). This is not to say that Target is not good and fine and all that, and it's not to say one must be in the lower income brackets to use GoodWill or donate to Good Will.

It just means that, even though they do essentially the same thing, they are treated differently (the definition of their type of business is different) by the government, and the way they're taxed and other minor "perks" are different for each similar type of business.

Now, let's take marriage. One type of marriage has been known for centuries to be a stabilizing and overall positive force for society. That's not to say that other types of relationships are not good and fine an dall that, and it's not to say that one must be of a certain sexual orientation to be involved in any of the types of relationships.

It just means that, even though they mary appear to be essentially the same thing, they are treated differently (the definition of the type of relationship) by the government, and the way they're taxed an dother minor "perks" are different for these similar but different types of relationships.

Does that help clear up how I see this comparison?

No because you forgot a big deference between Good Will and Target; Good Will is a not-for-profit organization. Revenue goes to help people and (of course) to fund operations. No one's getting rich. I'm pretty sure the owners of Target is doing pretty well :shrug:

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



I didn't ask whether or not you support gay marriage. I asked why it should be treated differently. You can't repeal our hypothetical gay marriage recognition laws just because YOU see no reason for it. If I can't say "there should be a gay marriage law just because I see no reason not to" then you certainly don't get to say the opposite.

I would be against the law if it existed. I've now said that twice. I'm not sure what you're looking for in a response.

Then how can you say you're against states recognizing it?!

 

[McGinn77]

Not a single tihng you said in this entire post is true.

I said I will agree to the evidence, and even said that there are countries out there that have legalized same-sex relationships as equal to actual marriage. How has that turned out, I asked.

I ask you for actual data, not anecdotal stories. For every anecdote you provide, i could provide a counter. That is meaningless. Real studies, statistics, etc., are what are required.

I actually don't have to, since your argument is that marriage is inherently better for the individual than cohabitation or monogamy you've already provided the built in support. Since they are living together any way society would be better off if we allowed them to marry.

Thanks for doing my work for me...again.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

And what benifit to society does MY heterosexual marriage serve again? I know I would remember if I would have had to prove one :shrug:

See, that's just it. Each person (or couple) does not have to prove it, nor is it a promise that each individual marriage is a benefit to society. Centuries of knowledge have proven that the idea, statistically, helps society. YOUR marriage may or may not individually, but statistically you being married is likely to help society overall.

Many countries have had these relaxations of the definition of marriage for some time. how did they fare?

So now you're denying equal recognition under the law because of a statistical history?! "Gee, John and Bob, I know you love eachother and you'd like equal marriage recognition under the law; but some statistics I saw once say you won't benefit society! So you must not be of any benefit...get over it." Yeah, I bet they'd be OK with that sound logic.

 

[This_person]

It has no business in unions whether by promotion or discouragement.

It neither promotes, encourages or discourages. it provides benefits to that which provides benefits to society.

I disagree.

I believe that personal liberty trumps societal desires. Hard.

Agreed. That's why no one stops a group of 3 on the street and challenges their state of marriage. The only time I know of when marriage is challenged, legally, is when the state of the marriage conflicts with law (as in asking to be married to more than one person, a person who is too closely related already, too young, not willing, or not of the opposite gender).

I believe I mentioned the term "Consenting adults". Repeatedly. And it keeps being overlooked.

Children, animals, dead people, etc... are incapable of informed consent.

Well, then, we agree and there's no reason to bring up bestiality, necrophilia, etc., again, is there?

You brought up pedophilia - which is a predatory behavior that targets one unable to consent.

I brought it up in the context of age being one of the currently accepted criteria for "marriage". You agree with that limitation, I agree with that limitation. Now we have a framework that limitations are acceptable, and can move forward from there on the other reasonable limitations.

 

[This_person]

Ok, you won't provide your evidence so we are done. What's the matter, you to afraid it won't stand on it's own?

Lawyers have to present evidence for review and we are talking law here so....

I gave you the author, the book, the publishing date, where it was made available to the public, and in some cases the page numbers.

Yeah, I'm so really afraid

Do you have google on your computer? Do you know where the library is? I gave you my sources, the studies, etc. I'm not providing emotional "but I think so" stuff, I gave you real things.