Explaining Same Sex Marriage

If you are not talking about homosexuality, then why are you talking about gay marriage?

 

Sorry, procreation has NOTHING to do with marriage, never had, never will.

 

The government's interests does not mean a (*)(*)(*)(*) thing.....the government should not have any say in the matter, if all parties involved are consenting adults....end of story.

 

Is it your position that laws should be passed to "benefit the populace as a whole?"

 

Unfortunately, social engineering and liberty are often at odds. Me, I'll take liberty.

 

No. But marriage isn't a law. There are laws that support marriage, but marriage itself is an institution endorsed by the government through certain laws that promote it since marriage is a benefit to societal stability.

 

Then you would be for no governmental endorsement of marriage--gay or straight?

 

There are 1400 rights that automatically come with marriage. Rights like automatic inheritance, hospital visitation rights, the right to choose for your partner if your parent if they cannot make a decision themselves, automatic adoption, etc

You really need to understand the rights that automatically come with marriage.

This benefit to society is just nonsense. A smoke screen.

 

Yes . But I'm utilitarian so whatever and you weren't talking to me. There can be a greater good for gay marriage on policy grounds thoiugh. People who are married generally don't live in poverty at the same levels single people do, and they also are less likely to commit crime. AND gay married couples could fill a perfect niche and adopt many of the kids in orphanages. This will benefit all of society.

 

Honestly that's the way it should be. The government shouldn't be meddling or endorsing people's personal relationships and giving people special privileges based on who they want to have a family with. However if they are going to then they better do it for ALL families. Both those with opposite-gender couples and those with same-gender couples.

 

Strawman. I didn't submit that as evidence of anything having to do with government or taxes, but to illustrate that the word "family" isn't restricted to your preferred definition. The fact that the government gives special rights to some families and not others is exactly what's at issue when we're discussing legal recognition for same-sex marriages being banned.

What you're attempting here is more or less a circular argument, claiming that same-sex couples and the children they raise can't be families because the government doesn't recognize them, when you know perfectly well that this lack of recognition for these families is the very topic at hand.

What I may or may not personally desire is not a topic for debate. Don't think I haven't noticed how much of my post you simply ignored.

You mean gay relationships that don't have the stabilizing benefit of being recognized as legal marriages? Now you're starting to show your true colors, and they aren't pretty.

Maybe we can talk about divorce statistics for same-sex couples vs. opposite-sex couples instead, comparing apples to apples. Hint: I'm not interested in propaganda from anti-gay hate groups or discredited researchers, so you can spare yourself the effort of locating and presenting them.

 

False framing. The comparison isn't being made between race and orientation (it's more than just sex, BTW). The comparison is between the failed tactics used against interracial couples, and the similar tactics now being used against same-sex couples. Those tactics are doomed to eventually fail not because of whom they target, but because they're incompatible with broader values such as liberty and equality.

 

^ nothing more than your opinion. Don't mistake your opinion for fact. We don't agree with your perception of what constitutes the facts in this matter.

 

Heterosexuals, meanwhile, do get special privileges for it - whether or not they actually have the ability or intent to procreate. Same-sex couples who undertake the same alternative methods as infertile heterosexual couples to build their families are meanwhile denied those privileges.

So again we have a case of false framing: gay people are seeking equality, not special rights. You and those who share your opinion are the ones seeking to retain special rights, seemingly based on nothing but bigotry.

I do not buy into the notion that rights are merely procedural and not substantive. So you can spare me the argument that we all know comes next.

 

The gist of the conversation isn't about what is or is not "family." We've been discussing whether or not the government has an interest in endorsing certain relationships. You can call you and your three poodles a "family" if you want to--however, you're not entitled to government support because you have.

No. I'm talking about the state having no inherent interest in supporting same sex unions. Any kids involved is a different issue altogether.

It's off topic because you are on this "family" kick and it's not what is being discussed. Hence, I ignored it.

Do you want to go there? That's what i asked. Do you want stats on the stability of gay relationships....REALLY?

Puh-leeze. what drama!

 

There is no inequality. I can understand the argument that no marriage should be supported by the government (but to me that's just a minority pissing and moaning because they feel entitled). But comparing miscegenation laws to the seeking same-sex marriage unions is a false comparison.

 

What interest does it have that would not be overly invasive to privacy? The government is not in the business of making people happy--there needs to be some demonstrable benefit to society as a whole--not just some esoteric feel-good baloney.

 

Because most marriages DO produce offspring--often MULTIPLE offspring. It is inherent in the marital structure and it is a benefit to society. THAT is why the government endorses it with special privileges--it GIVES BACK--it's an investment in the future.

The same-sex relationship is not one that procreates inherently, and the gov. can't require they procure children. That is why there is NO INTEREST for the gov. to endorse same sex unions.

Marriage rights ARE special rights conferred as an investment in the future due to the inherent procreative nature of marriage.

It's ridiculous to call a different opinion bigotry. It's rude, too. If you can't debate an issue without ad hominem, perhaps you should get out of the kitchen.

 

Context matters. The post I originally responded to was attempting to use the concept of family as a stabilizing force in society - something the government might have an interest in promoting. Now that your original framework has been shredded, you're attempting to turn the discussion on its head. Don't think we haven't noticed your abandonment of that argument.

Laughable. What do you think is the end result of procreation? Children, and they do matter in this discussion. Who produced them is not nearly as important to creating a stable society as supporting those who raise them. In claiming that kids are a different issue, you verify that you are not interested in what is practical, but in some golden ideal completely divorced from reality.

On the contrary, you're the one who introduced this business about families being a stabilizing force that the government has an interest in promoting. You ignored what I had to say on the matter because it shown a bright light on the flaws in your original argument.

Like I said - not if it's stuff you pull from propagandists and discredited research, and not if it's not a comparison of apples to apples.

Quite clearly you don't want us to go there.

An accusation of 'drama' where there was none, rapped in your own display of theatrics.

You aren't fooling anyone.

 

^ an opinion for which you provide no supporting argument.

Not an argument I made. What's more, you're taking what one or a few people said and suddenly pretending that gay people as a group are making that argument for the purpose of portraying them as "pissing and moaning". Displays of rank prejudice don't get much more obvious than that.

Not the comparison that was made, as already addressed. So either you didn't comprehend what you read, or you're just being dishonest.

 

No more invasive than an interest in supporting the marriages of opposite-sex couples.

You're the one spouting baloney. Do you seriously want to revisit the argument about what that demonstrable benefit is? You started by arguing that it was a benefit of families lending stability to society. It has already been demonstrated that the benefit is not exclusively a trait of opposite-sex unions. Which you ignored because it made mincemeat of your argument.

Oh, and strawman. I didn't say anything about making people happy. Now you're resorting to just making crap up instead of dealing with the actual arguments.

 

Yes--context does matter--and it was the umpteenth time I explained the procreative quality inherent in the male/female union that is supported by government. "Family" is a short-cut term. Excuse me that it's on your list of hot-button terms that you want to parse ad infinitum. Whether you like it or not, "family" is inter-relatedness based on genetics and marriage or adoption. Yes--the term can be loosely applied, but "family unit" does imply male/female and their offspring. The term you should rather be using is "household" since such relationships of same sex couples living together with or without children are not related by blood, legal bond or adoption.

Children matter in the discussion only in that their production can naturally and inherently occur within a hetero-marriage (which the gov has an interest in supporting) but cannot occur naturally or inherently (without a third party or adoption) within a homo-marriage. to try and introduce "the good of the child" in individual cases is to make an emotional appeal that strays from the objective reality of the debate.

You over estimate your debate skills.

So your answer is no because you know that the stats show instability--perhaps even different concepts entirely as to what fidelity means in a relationship.

By all means. Why don't you go there and bring the info on the stability of same sex relationships. Please, do.

 

As are the cases of couples who produce children through alternative methods of reproduction. You don't have a leg to stand on here.

Ridiculous. You're moving the goalposts. You start with procreation, and when that doesn't work you narrow it "inherently procreating", ignoring the plain fact that procreation is not a requisite of marriage, nor is the method of procreation.

Moving the goalposts even further. Marriage is not inherently procreative by nature - people are.

Not ridiculous when that opinion is a clear display of it. As for rude, you're in the wrong place if you're expecting us to refrain from telling it like it is.

If you can't debate an issue without resorting to avoidance and strawmen, then perhaps you're the one that should get out of the kitchen.

 

you want me to prove a negative? THE LAWS ARE THE SAME FOR GAYS AND STRAIGHTS!

Fine--it's a fairly reasonable one though.

The entitlement mentality is disgusting, IMO. I don't care if I'm viewed as prejudiced against the "I'm entitled to whatever I want because the government owes me" crowd. It has nothing to do with a person's sexual preference and everything to do with individuals who are self-centered and feel the world OWES them something.

Reiterate it then.