NY: Homosexuals Win but Society Loses

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



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

You can use them, but I can provide individual counter examples and we could do that until the cows come home and we'd have gotten no where.

If we're not talking big picture, not about individuals, we're really not talking law, we're talking feelings.

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



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.

No, that's not what that implies at all. It implies that those living in monogamous relationships that don't fit the current definition of marriage do not benefit society as much as those who do fit the current definition of marriage - monogamous cohabitation included.

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



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

It's not the basis for our constitution, it's the basis for our revolution. there isn't a single legally enforceable concept in the declaration of indepence, or in the preamble to the constitution for that matter.

Just sayin'

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

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.

Seriously? So it's true, you ARE afraid to post your links!

If your viewpoint on the subject is so secular, why don't you find a secular source? Problem solved.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

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?

And I also didn't say they should be

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



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

You can use them, but I can provide individual counter examples and we could do that until the cows come home and we'd have gotten no where.

If we're not talking big picture, not about individuals, we're really not talking law, we're talking feelings.

IDK about you, but I'm not a layer, so I can't really argue Law. I can, however, argue liberty as defined by the DoI and the constitution.

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



Seriously? So it's true, you ARE afraid to post your links!

If your viewpoint on the subject is so secular, why don't you find a secular source? Problem solved.

All of the references I provided are unbiased and secular (as I mentioned). Read the references, not the source of the references. Problem solved.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



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.

No, that's not what that implies at all. It implies that those living in monogamous relationships that don't fit the current definition of marriage do not benefit society as much as those who do fit the current definition of marriage - monogamous cohabitation included.

No, you said your studies found that married people provide all these benefits. So, let gay people marry eachother and they'll begin to benefit society since you seem to think they currently do.

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



And I also didn't say they should be

:hanging head in frustration:

Okay, so, IF you are able to recognize that Good Will is different from Target, and IF you are able to suggest reasons why this is true, do you at least also recognize that (1) that's a good thing, and (2) the reasons you provided are simply a way of restating my point - that Good Will provides a benefit to society differently than Target does?

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



No, you said your studies found that married people provide all these benefits. So, let gay people marry eachother and they'll begin to benefit society since you seem to think they currently do.

Nothing suggests monogamous same-sex relationships offer the same benefits. Quite the contrary, actually.

Therefore, allowing same-sex couples to "marry" one another would dilute the societal benefits of "marriage".

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



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

It's not the basis for our constitution, it's the basis for our revolution. there isn't a single legally enforceable concept in the declaration of indepence, or in the preamble to the constitution for that matter.

Just sayin'

Yes it is. The constitution defines the function of our govt as interpreted through the DoI. The constitution was indeed not directly influenced by the DoI rather that Virginia Declaration of Rights; which also influenced the DoI. So, this being th case, let's look at the VA DoR:

That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Hmmm, sounds familiar. Do you not believe that all men are created equal?

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



Seriously? So it's true, you ARE afraid to post your links!

If your viewpoint on the subject is so secular, why don't you find a secular source? Problem solved.

All of the references I provided are unbiased and secular (as I mentioned). Read the references, not the source of the references. Problem solved.

Ok, can you show them to me or do I need to do your work for you? OR maybe you can't find any references backing up your 'sexular' viewpoint that were ever published online?

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



Yes it is. The constitution defines the function of our govt as interpreted through the DoI. The constitution was indeed not directly influenced by the DoI rather that Virginia Declaration of Rights; which also influenced the DoI. So, this being th case, let's look at the VA DoR:



Hmmm, sounds familiar. Do you not believe that all men are created equal?

In the eyes of the law, I certainly agree with that.

Not all relationships, just like not all stores that sell stuff. But, all people created as equals in the eyes of the law, certainly.

That's why, if any state had a sexual orientation criteria for marriage, I would be 100% against that.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



And I also didn't say they should be

:hanging head in frustration:

Okay, so, IF you are able to recognize that Good Will is different from Target, and IF you are able to suggest reasons why this is true, do you at least also recognize that (1) that's a good thing, and (2) the reasons you provided are simply a way of restating my point - that Good Will provides a benefit to society differently than Target does?

I see where your going here. I never said homosexuals marrying homosexuals is the SAME as heterosexuals marrying heterosexuals. I said they should be recognized equally under the law. *sigh*

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



No, you said your studies found that married people provide all these benefits. So, let gay people marry eachother and they'll begin to benefit society since you seem to think they currently do.

Nothing suggests monogamous same-sex relationships offer the same benefits. Quite the contrary, actually.

Therefore, allowing same-sex couples to "marry" one another would dilute the societal benefits of "marriage".

Ok, maybe monogamous same-sex relationships don't benefit society. Aside from the fact that one still doesn't need to prove they deserve equality...if marriage is so beneficial, they should be allowed to marry :shrug:

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



Yes it is. The constitution defines the function of our govt as interpreted through the DoI. The constitution was indeed not directly influenced by the DoI rather that Virginia Declaration of Rights; which also influenced the DoI. So, this being th case, let's look at the VA DoR:



Hmmm, sounds familiar. Do you not believe that all men are created equal?

In the eyes of the law, I certainly agree with that.

Not all relationships, just like not all stores that sell stuff. But, all people created as equals in the eyes of the law, certainly.

That's why, if any state had a sexual orientation criteria for marriage, I would be 100% against that.

"in the eyes of the law"

Then treat them as equals in the eyes of the law. Done.

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



Ok, can you show them to me or do I need to do your work for you? OR maybe you can't find any references backing up your 'sexular' viewpoint that were ever published online?

Once again, all of the references I provided ARE secular and unbiased, and I presumed you all had google as a website on your internet too.

Charlotte Schoenborn, Marital Status and Health

Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially

Corey L.M. Keyes, "Social Civility in the United States"

Carl L. Bankston III and Min Zhou, "Social Capital as Process: The Meaning and Problems of a Theoretical Metaphor"

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



I see where your going here. I never said homosexuals marrying homosexuals is the SAME as heterosexuals marrying heterosexuals. I said they should be recognized equally under the law. *sigh*

To which I say "why", to which you say "cuz it feels right", to which I say "show me the societal benefit", to which you say "why" to which I say "cuz, just like Target and Good Will are treated differently because they offer different benefits to society, traditional marriage and same-sex relationships are similar but provide different benefits to society", to which you say "uhhhhhhhh, but Target and Good Will aren't the same thing", to which I say "yep, that's what i'm saying."

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



Ok, maybe monogamous same-sex relationships don't benefit society. Aside from the fact that one still doesn't need to prove they deserve equality...if marriage is so beneficial, they should be allowed to marry :shrug:

"Marriage" has been proven beneficial only as it is defined today. Other types of relationships have not proven equal benefits.

Provide the data to demonstrate that the different thing is as good as the already proven thing, and you'll have an argument.

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



"in the eyes of the law"

Then treat them as equals in the eyes of the law. Done.

That already happens with marriage defined as it is. Done!