 |
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:32
|
|
LORIZAEL
quote:
So, why should a gay couple that adopts a child not get economic benefits from their union, while a straight couple that decides not to have children get economic benefits from their union?
|
Excellent point. However, to address such change, all we would need to do is compensate all those who are willing to adopt children. No need to change the marriage laws.
quote:
We don't actually need more children. There are too many people as it is...
|
Look at the demographics. Without immigration, we would be lamenting the population decline and the resultant drop in the consumer base.
Last edited by Ben Kenobi on 20-11-2003 at 07:18
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:32
|
|
quote:
The issue isn't benefits; it's freedom of association and equal rights to enter into contracts based on sex.
Up through the late 1960s, Virginia and other states banned interracial marriages, until SCOTUS ruled such bans unconstitutional (in Loving vs. Virginia, IIRC). The logic was that marriage is a contract as far as the State is concerned; to tell a man that he can enter into a contract with a white woman but not a black woman is discrimination based on race. So, similarly, to tell a man he can enter into a contract with women, but not men, is discrimination based on sex.
|
Rufus:
This is a better argument, however, your first point is the weakest. How many times do we hear the argument that gays are being denied benefits? They want the benefits and social recognition of marriage more so than anything else. To seperate the legal status from benefits has no merit.
Now, as for your analogy to Loving and Virginia, you base your reasoning on equality. There is no situation where having a black man ought to differ from a white man. The same is not true for sex.
For example, would you want a man counseling a raped woman? No. But is this not discrimination based on sex?
Marriage is one of these examples, where it is in the interests of society to limit the contract to members of the opposite sex, in that the man can only make a contract with a woman.
quote:
it's freedom of association
|
Nope. You are making a contract with the STATE, as well as with each other. Read your own argument so you see why freedom of association does not come into play.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mordoch
|
|
Denver, Colorado
Jan 2002
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Hence my clarifier, on the whole marriage has substantial benefits for society. Individual examples may differ, but the entire sample works out to be enormously positive.
So try again, Mordoch. |
But how can you justify allowing individuals who are both 70 or older to marry given your justification? They are actually less likely to have or adopt kids than a younger homosexual couple. I also fail to see why you don't have fertility requirement for marriage if the specific issue you previously mentioned is your primary concern. Furthermore I question your population argument. While there are economic benefits for a population increase in the US, they are outweighed by the quality of life issues. If increasing the birth rate is your goal, giving huge tax breaks to those who have kids is much more efficient than you idea of restrictions on marriage.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
Marriage is one of these examples, where it is in the interests of society to limit the contract to members of the opposite sex, in that the man can only make a contract with a woman. |
And just what right does the state have to tell me who I can and can't contract with? I'm not asking the state to give me other people's money for getting married (some people ask that, but I don't), I'm simply asking for them not to get in the way of a simple contract between two consenting adults, that does not result in harm or coercion towards anyone.
All a marriage is, in a secular state, is a legal contract. If the state can't tell me that I can't contract with a man for roof repairs, then the state also can't tell me that I can't contract with a man for joint property ownership, etc. The terms of the contract may be different, but the underlying premise is not.
So, either you believe the state should be able to limit, restrict, or deny my freedom to make ANY non-coercive, non-harmful contract, or you believe that the state should NOT be able to. Which is it gonna be?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:32
|
|
And by the way, are there any non-religious reasons that you think homosexuals should be legally prevented from marrying? There may be non-religious justifications, such as childbirth, "social morals", and things of that nature, but those justifications are just that. If so many people didn't believe we should legislate based on what religion tells us, then I find it VERY difficult to believe that there would be even near the level of opposition to homosexual marriage that exists today.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Rufus:
This is a better argument, however, your first point is the weakest. How many times do we hear the argument that gays are being denied benefits? They want the benefits and social recognition of marriage more so than anything else. To seperate the legal status from benefits has no merit. |
Of course it has merit. What people want (benefits) will always be the basis for political activism, because desire for advantage is a great motivator; but what people deserve, legally -- rights -- is and should be a serparate matter (which is why we attempt to insulate courts from political pressure). You should have the free exercise of religion regarless of whether you benefit from being religious -- indeed, regarless of whether your are religious. Citizens should have the right to enter into contracts with each other, regardless of whether benefits are to be had from such contracts.
quote:
Now, as for your analogy to Loving and Virginia, you base your reasoning on equality. There is no situation where having a black man ought to differ from a white man. The same is not true for sex.
For example, would you want a man counseling a raped woman? No. But is this not discrimination based on sex? |
Actually, if I trained as a rape counsellor and could prove that I was denied a job because I was a man, that would be sex discrimination.
Here's the thing about democracy: it's a messy system of imperfect compromises -- and that's its strength. Once you commit to giving people rights, that takes absolute precedence over what makes people "comfortable." And that's a good thing.
quote:
Marriage is one of these examples, where it is in the interests of society to limit the contract to members of the opposite sex, in that the man can only make a contract with a woman. |
You have yet to demonstrate that it is in the interests of society to limit marriage to heterosexuals. You certainly do keep asserting it; but you rely on arguments that have no empirical basis and are more rooted in ideology than reason. So, no, marriage is not one of those examples -- if, indeed, those examples even exist.
quote:
Nope. You are making a contract with the STATE, as well as with each other. Read your own argument so you see why freedom of association does not come into play. |
But the state has no power to regulate categorically with whom you enter into that contract, provided both parties are competent adults; that's what I meant by "freedom of association," though it probably doesn't apply in a technical, first-amendment sense. That's okay; the issue is individual rights under contract law, just as in Loving, and on those terms the case for gay marriage is rock-solid.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:32
|
|
DD,
Actually, you just hit on the only possible reason anyone would oppose letting gays do whatever the hell they want WRT "marriage", or whatever you wanna call it.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-11-2003 23:36
step in the right direction!
|