Gay marriage to be allowed in NJ

[Neo Rome Republic]

Me: I don't support gay marriage because it offers no benefit to society as a whole

But it does. That's like saying repealing anti-miscegnation laws in the 60s offered no benefit to society as a whole. LGBT people are contributing members of society, so how does giving them rights do anything but benefit society? Human rights and inclusion are greatly beneficial for formerly oppressed groups of people.

He also keeps ignoring the economic benefits.

[Grenartia]

So adoption is unnatural?

1. A Homosexual couple trying to raise kids as a family unit is.

So surrogates are unnatural?

2. Yes

So infertile heterosexual couples can't marry?

So old heterosexual couples can't marry?

So heterosexual couples not wanting kids can't marry?

There's no point or societal benefit to it.

Or do you just hate gays?

3. I don't hate gays depedning on their individual behavior, although i do hate "gay culture".

Why should people want to take part in a tradition of Union when it has historically excluded them anyway?

Because marriage holds a tremendous amount of weight in society. It means a great deal.

4. True and therefore the responsibilties and obligations one should have to commit t should be Grand as well.

And if marriage is to exist at all, it must be available to all.

5. And therefore should be available to those who give utility to the institution and benefit society as a whole.

Not just anybody who just wants one, just cuz of muh rights.[/quote]

1. Naturalistic fallacy. I find it ironic that you're using something arguably unnatural (computers, internet) to denounce something you claim is unnatural. Its like watching a vegan talk about how evil meat and animal products are while eating a double bacon cheeseburger.

2. Again, naturalistic fallacy.

3. There's no such thing as "gay culture", any more than there is "straight culture".

4. So love and commitment aren't grand?

5. Yes, because not being a criminal, and making a positive impact on society isn't good enough for you, is it?

[The Nuclear Fist]

Here's a question? Why is tradition inherently good? Why is being an asshole to a group of people justified solely by having done it for a long time?

[Neo Rome Republic]

Here's a question? Why is tradition inherently good? Why is being an asshole to a group of people justified solely by having done it for a long time?

It isn't.

[Genivaria]

Here's a question? Why is tradition inherently good? Why is being an asshole to a group of people justified solely by having done it for a long time?

You can use the same justification for slavery, Chinese foot-binding (shivers), along with countless draconian laws.

[Grenartia]

Here's a question? Why is tradition inherently good? Why is being an asshole to a group of people justified solely by having done it for a long time?

You've hit on our exact point.

Its for everything you listed (and more) that "appeal to tradition" is a logical fallacy.

[The Nuclear Fist]

Here's a question? Why is tradition inherently good? Why is being an asshole to a group of people justified solely by having done it for a long time?

You can use the same justification for slavery, Chinese foot-binding (shivers), along with countless draconian laws.

What even constitutes 'tradition', anyway? At what point does something become tradition? If I punch my neighbour in the cock every day for a week, does it suddenly become tradition that must be protected and enshrined in law?

If so, I've got some bad news for my neighbour. I'll tell him while he's incapacitated from his dayly cock punching.

[The Godly Nations]

Here's a question? Why is tradition inherently good? Why is being an asshole to a group of people justified solely by having done it for a long time?

It is good because it is how things have been done since time immemorial...we must also return to that glorious tradition grunting and flinging shit at each other, to return to that natural state before our degeneracy, where we have rational and intellectual debates!

[Genivaria]

You can use the same justification for slavery, Chinese foot-binding (shivers), along with countless draconian laws.

What even constitutes 'tradition', anyway? At what point does something become tradition? If I punch my neighbour in the cock every day for a week, does it suddenly become tradition that must be protected and enshrined in law?

If so, I've got some bad news for my neighbour. I'll tell him while he's incapacitated from his dayly cock punching.

Almost made me choke. Quoted.

[Libertarian California]

I knew there was something flamboyant about Pauly D.

[Yankeesse]

I've seen this argument before, you're essentially saying that homosexual marriage doesn't benefit society, and that marriage is "so strong" gays marrying would somehow destroy traditional marriage.

The thing is it's just another development in the casual nature of marriage today there is not any real obligation or responsibilty anymore on the whole.

It's not like just restricting this makes the institution of marriage as it is a valuable thing, numerous reforms would need to be mandated.

You mention that it's not a proper family with two dads. I don't see why it isn't, family values and the like are social constructs so its not harming anyone.

Human rights are a social contruct as well, does that mean that have no rational backing and reason for their establishment?

Does that mean i can just ignore them i f I think i have a better/acceptable alternative.

But in a childs social developement they should have a Maculine (Father) and Feminine (Mother) influences, in order to be better adjusted to interact in greater society.

Can it be done by a same sex couple? Maybe.

But on averages is it as good as the Traditional setting? I don't see how it could.

It's like children in a single parent home, can they be raised well, yes, but on average in comparison to the Nuclear family are they? No.

And why do opposite sex couples benefit to society but gay couples do not? Your logic here makes no sense whatsoever.

No the logic is so plain and obvious i can't understand how you overlooked it, without heterosexual couples then there are no children. And without a stable household often established beforehand by a marriage, Children can lack the nuturing and discipline that they need in order to grow up well adjusted.

A Homosexual couple trying to raise kids as a family unit is.

And yet, this unnatural behavior was found amongst penguins. Unnatural degenerates.

Humans are not penguins

I don't hate gays depedning on their individual behavior, although i do hate "gay culture".

I don't hate gays, I just hate gays acting too gay. If they just kept quiet about it...

Yes, if they say what they do in privite in the bedroom is nobodies business then there own, then they shouldn't put so much effort into making what they do in the bedroom the foremost part of their identity.

It's like douchebags who go around talking about how many girls they have sex with.

Or Sluts talking about how many guys they've been with, it's degenerate in any sexual orientation.

True and therefore the responsibilties and obligations one should have to commit t should be Grand as well.

Like fidelity, or love, grand things that can exist in homosexual couples

That they can have without marriage.

So, as long as our homosexual couples work and pay taxes as every other Americans, it would be A-Okay?

They can do this without marriage.

[The Nuclear Fist]

But in a childs social developement they should have a Maculine (Father) and Feminine (Mother) influences, in order to be better adjusted to interact in greater society.

Can it be done by a same sex couple? Maybe.

But on averages is it as good as the Traditional setting? I don't see how it could.

It's like children in a single parent home, can they be raised well, yes, but on average in comparison to the Nuclear family are they? No.

You're either lying, ignorant of the subject, or both.

I already covered this in an earlier response to you.

A Homosexual couple trying to raise kids as a family unit is.

So why is it that children raised by LGBT parents turn out just as well as children raised by heterosexual parents?

http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gay-parent ... ight-ones/
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/c ... .2013-0377
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peggy-dre ... 39166.html
https://www.apa.org/news/press/response ... rents.aspx
https://www.apa.org/about/policy/parenting.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_paren ... s_outcomes

Yes

Why?

There's no point or societal benefit to it.

The point is that two people who love each other and want to commit in the eyes of society should be allowed to do so. And the fact that married workers are typically more productive than their nonmarried counterparts certainly means there is a societal benefit.

I don't hate gays depedning on their individual behavior, although i do hate "gay culture".

"I don't hate gays, they just shouldn't have equal rights or be able to express themselves." does not strike me as not being homophobic.

True and therefore the responsibilties and obligations one should have to commit t should be Grand as well.

That didn't have anything to do with what I said. Are homosexual couples somehow less able to able to deal with said responsibilities and obligations? Because I'd love to see your evidence for that.

And therefore should be available to those who give utility to the institution and benefit society as a whole.

How are you measuring 'utility to institution and benefit to society'? How are you defining it?

And how does now allowing gays to marry do either?

Not just anybody who just wants one, just cuz of muh rights.

Human rights are more important than authoritarian circle jerking and 'B-but muh tradition!' claptrap.

[Geilinor]

But in a childs social developement they should have a Maculine (Father) and Feminine (Mother) influences, in order to be better adjusted to interact in greater society.

Can it be done by a same sex couple? Maybe.

But on averages is it as good as the Traditional setting? I don't see how it could.

It's like children in a single parent home, can they be raised well, yes, but on average in comparison to the Nuclear family are they? No.

You're either lying, ignorant of the subject, or both.

I already covered this in an earlier response to you.

So why is it that children raised by LGBT parents turn out just as well as children raised by heterosexual parents?

http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gay-parent ... ight-ones/
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/c ... .2013-0377
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peggy-dre ... 39166.html
https://www.apa.org/news/press/response ... rents.aspx
https://www.apa.org/about/policy/parenting.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_paren ... s_outcomes


Why?


The point is that two people who love each other and want to commit in the eyes of society should be allowed to do so. And the fact that married workers are typically more productive than their nonmarried counterparts certainly means there is a societal benefit.


"I don't hate gays, they just shouldn't have equal rights or be able to express themselves." does not strike me as not being homophobic.


That didn't have anything to do with what I said. Are homosexual couples somehow less able to able to deal with said responsibilities and obligations? Because I'd love to see your evidence for that.


How are you measuring 'utility to institution and benefit to society'? How are you defining it?

And how does now allowing gays to marry do either?


Human rights are more important than authoritarian circle jerking and 'B-but muh tradition!' claptrap.

One more source. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths

[Yankeesse]

He also keeps ignoring the economic benefits.

What are they.

[Liriena]

But in a childs social developement they should have a Maculine (Father) and Feminine (Mother) influences, in order to be better adjusted to interact in greater society.

Can it be done by a same sex couple? Maybe.

But on averages is it as good as the Traditional setting? I don't see how it could.

It's like children in a single parent home, can they be raised well, yes, but on average in comparison to the Nuclear family are they? No.

You're either lying, ignorant of the subject, or both.

I already covered this in an earlier response to you.

So why is it that children raised by LGBT parents turn out just as well as children raised by heterosexual parents?

http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gay-parent ... ight-ones/
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/c ... .2013-0377
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peggy-dre ... 39166.html
https://www.apa.org/news/press/response ... rents.aspx
https://www.apa.org/about/policy/parenting.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_paren ... s_outcomes


Why?


The point is that two people who love each other and want to commit in the eyes of society should be allowed to do so. And the fact that married workers are typically more productive than their nonmarried counterparts certainly means there is a societal benefit.


"I don't hate gays, they just shouldn't have equal rights or be able to express themselves." does not strike me as not being homophobic.


That didn't have anything to do with what I said. Are homosexual couples somehow less able to able to deal with said responsibilities and obligations? Because I'd love to see your evidence for that.


How are you measuring 'utility to institution and benefit to society'? How are you defining it?

And how does now allowing gays to marry do either?


Human rights are more important than authoritarian circle jerking and 'B-but muh tradition!' claptrap.

He's not just lying... he's misrepresenting his opposition, ignoring the evidence presented by other posters, appealing to a false conception of nature and covering it up with special pleadings and poorly conceived ad hocs.

[Grenartia]

You're either lying, ignorant of the subject, or both.

I already covered this in an earlier response to you.

One more source. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths

Considering that Yankesse is a Holocaust denier, I don't think they take much stock in the words of a group that classifies Holocaust deniers as hate groups.

[Grenartia]

He also keeps ignoring the economic benefits.

What are they.

They've already been pointed out to you. Search the thread for "economic benefits" and you'll see what they are.

[Neo Rome Republic]

He also keeps ignoring the economic benefits.

What are they.

You also did not respond to one of my earlier posts, where I address this, so Ill summarize:People spending money on things like weddings ceremonies, costumes, etc. As such, more people getting married is good for the economy. Also, we have something called sperm banks, so much for gays and no reproduction. Marriage isn't about reproduction either, otherwise fertile couples would be barred from marriage.

[Yankeesse]

He's not just lying... he's misrepresenting his opposition,

How?

ignoring the evidence presented by other posters,

When?

appealing to a false conception of nature

Please explain to me the true conception of nature.

and covering it up with special pleadings and poorly conceived ad hocs.

Such as? And as opposed to many other peoples special pleadings and ad hocs?

[Liriena]

He also keeps ignoring the economic benefits.

What are they.

For starters.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Please explain to me the true conception of nature.

Mankind is a part of nature, so everything we do is natural.

[The Nuclear Fist]

He's not just lying... he's misrepresenting his opposition,

How?

ignoring the evidence presented by other posters,

When?

Jesus fucking christ, are you blind?

You're either lying, ignorant of the subject, or both.

I already covered this in an earlier response to you.

One more source. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths

[Yankeesse]

What are they.

You also did not respond to one of my earlier posts, where I address this, so Ill summarize:People spending money on things like weddings ceremonies, costumes, etc. As such, more people getting married is good for the economy. Also, we have something called sperm banks, so much for gays and no reproduction. Marriage isn't about reproduction either, otherwise fertile couples would be barred from marriage.

I probably missed it as im talking to various people at a time.
But i found something that was interesting and i think could better explain some of my postions then I can.

Adam Kolasinksi






Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason to grant them the costly benefits of marriage.



The Tech, Volume 124, Number 5
Tuesday, February 17, 2004



The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one's spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.



I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse's social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse's health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between to unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.



Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reaching technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.



Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.



One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian's sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe's Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child's development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a scoial policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.



Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state's interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.



Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.



Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.



The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis cant it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction that love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.



Adam Kolasinski is a doctoral student in financial economics. This article originally appeared in The Tech, an MIT newspaper

[Vault 1]

For starters.

It estimates that the government would see a small increase in tax revenues: $500 million to $700 million annually from 2011 to 2014

So the reason to allow gay marriages is so that the government can collect more taxes from them.

If so, my guess is at least 40 states will allow it by 2016.

[Yankeesse]

Jesus fucking christ, are you blind?

I probbly ignored thsi because my central argument isn't about how well children can be raised by gay couples it about why Gay Marriages should be a thing.