NY: Homosexuals Win but Society Loses

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



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:

So, you would say that the helping of people (those who make up society) is a larger gain for the society than simple profit motive? (I didn't leave it out, it's part and parcel to my point)

 

[McGinn77]

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.

The limit is consent to avoid a child being taken advantage of. My rights end where another's begin. If you can't see the difference you are a totally lost cause and I can only be happy you are part of a growing minority.

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



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

Ummmm, did you really just ask me "if your against it, then how can you say you're against it"?

 

[This_person]

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.

Sure, if they fit the definition of marriage as provided in the study, you'd be right.

The status they fit now (the monogamous cohabitation) demonstrates that same-sex relationships do not compare favorably with marriage as it is currently defined.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

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.

Just so you know, gay people are also capable of monogamous cohabitation. You didn't provide links so since you never mentioned sexual orientation, I can only assume a distinction wasn't made in the studies.

Late edit (I think I misread what you'd said again ) I thought you were equating marriage to monogamous cohabitation and that that benighted society...but I read it again a d I don't think you were making that comparison

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



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 soundogic.

It's not personal to any particular couple any more than marriage laws are for particular couples. No more than welfare is for an individual, or tax rates are based on a single company.

Big picture. Think big picture, not the emotional state of John and Bob, but the big picture of society.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

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.

IDK, all that business about our rights being self evident seem to imple that one does not need to prove they deserve a right...:shrug:

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



Just so you know, gay people are also capable of monogamous cohabitation. You didn't provide links so since you never mentioned sexual orientation, I can only assume a distinction wasn't made in the studies.

In terms of cohabitation, I have to make the same assumption. And, cohabitation (monogamous) was worse in all cases than marriage, as it is currently defined.

The only logical assumption one can draw from that is that monogamous relationships like those of same-sex couples is not up to the standard of benefit to society that marriage, as it is currently defined, is.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

links?

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

Here's a link to it all.

Ok, so your link to the library tells me that you copied those references from a paper on the subject? Since I'm not in the habit of visiting the library to research my SoMD Forum discussions, can you link to the study you got those sources from? Thanks

BTW, who said anything about MSNBC?

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

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.

You really like to talk about emotions don't you?

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



IDK, all that business about our rights being self evident seem to imple that one does not need to prove they deserve a right...:shrug:

That's true (part of the DofI, not anything legally enforceable, but, we'll leave that alone for now). That's why everyone has the right to marry. And, the government is not forced to recognize ANY marriage or relationship, but does so for those that provide societal benefits because it makes sense to the general welfare of the United States as defined in the legally enforceable Article One, Section 8 of the Constitution.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



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:

So, you would say that the helping of people (those who make up society) is a larger gain for the society than simple profit motive? (I didn't leave it out, it's part and parcel to my point)

I didn't say that now did I?

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



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

Ummmm, did you really just ask me "if your against it, then how can you say you're against it"?

I think I misunderstood what you had said (I just re-read it). Sorry

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



Ok, so your link to the library tells me that you copied those references from a paper on the subject? Since I'm not in the habit of visiting the library to research my SoMD Forum discussions, can you link to the study you got those sources from? Thanks

BTW, who said anything about MSNBC?

If I linked my source, it would distract from my secular points and unbiased references by showing I read religious texts.

While the references I provided are not religious or biased in any nature, the source from which I received them is, and would be fodder for dismissing the points by closed minded people reading our discussion. So, I choose to offer the references and not the source from which I received them.

 

[McGinn77]

That's true (part of the DofI, not anything legally enforceable, but, we'll leave that alone for now). That's why everyone has the right to marry. And, the government is not forced to recognize ANY marriage or relationship, but does so for those that provide societal benefits because it makes sense to the general welfare of the United States as defined in the legally enforceable Article One, Section 8 of the Constitution.

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

First of all, show me where any of that is even remotely related to this topic. And secondly, the Executive Branch does not have the right to make law regarding marriage or anything else. That falls under the Legislative Branch. Civics 101....

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



I didn't say that now did I?

No, you didn't. So, what would you say is the reason tax benefits are different based on the information you provided?

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



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 soundogic.

It's not personal to any particular couple any more than marriage laws are for particular couples. No more than welfare is for an individual, or tax rates are based on a single company.

Big picture. Think big picture, not the emotional state of John and Bob, but the big picture of society.

There you go again with emotions. I didn't know I wasn't allowed to use individual examples and hypothetical situations.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



Just so you know, gay people are also capable of monogamous cohabitation. You didn't provide links so since you never mentioned sexual orientation, I can only assume a distinction wasn't made in the studies.

In terms of cohabitation, I have to make the same assumption. And, cohabitation (monogamous) was worse in all cases than marriage, as it is currently defined.

The only logical assumption one can draw from that is that monogamous relationships like those of same-sex couples is not up to the standard of benefit to society that marriage, as it is currently defined, is.

OK, so if states recognize gay monogamous, cohabiting couple to marry; they'd benefit society by living healthier / longer, voting, not smoking...all that stuff you cited earlier.

 

[This_person]

First of all, show me where any of that is even remotely related to this topic. And secondly, the Executive Branch does not have the right to make law regarding marriage or anything else. That falls under the Legislative Branch. Civics 101....

In her post, UNA discussed holding certain truths to be self-evident, a reference to the Declaration of Independence, and attempting to say that all people are endowed by their Creator with the right to, among other things, have the government recognize their relationship regardless of who their relationship is with.

I suggested back to UNA that a societal benefit falls under the "provide for the ....general welfare of the United States" issue insofar as tax and other perceived benefits goes.

Article One, Section 8 is in reference to the legislative branch, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say. However, they can't pass laws alone - it takes the executive branch to agree with or ignore long enough a bill to make it become a law.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



IDK, all that business about our rights being self evident seem to imple that one does not need to prove they deserve a right...:shrug:

That's true (part of the DofI, not anything legally enforceable, but, we'll leave that alone for now). That's why everyone has the right to marry. And, the government is not forced to recognize ANY marriage or relationship, but does so for those that provide societal benefits because it makes sense to the general welfare of the United States as defined in the legally enforceable Article One, Section 8 of the Constitution.

So is the DoI not the very basis for our Constiturion? Since it is I'm pretty sure it holds water. Just sayin'