Gay Civil Union Discussion

[Liriena]

No public interest? You mean the mental and physical well-being and socioeconomic stability of LGBT people and their families are not of public interest?

You're begging the question by assuming that, in the absence of same-sex marriage, LGBT people will be worse off. I don't think that's necessarily the case.

Considering the fact that marriage provides health care benefits and promotes emotional and economic stability, I'd say you are wrong. Adding the fact that the benefits of marriage encourage long-term monogamy, I'd also say same-sex marriage may help with the STI's and HIV/AIDS pandemic. After all, monogamy is one of the CDC's recommended forms of HIV/AIDS prevention. Also: minority stress.

[Olthar]

No public interest? You mean the mental and physical well-being and socioeconomic stability of LGBT people and their families are not of public interest?

You're begging the question by assuming that, in the absence of same-sex marriage, LGBT people will be worse off. I don't think that's necessarily the case.

Genius, thy name is Auralia. Truly, denying people their human rights confers no negative repercussions on said people. Why has no one ever realized this before?

[The Emerald Dawn]

You're begging the question by assuming that, in the absence of same-sex marriage, LGBT people will be worse off. I don't think that's necessarily the case.

Genius, thy name is Auralia. Truly, denying people their human rights confers no negative repercussions on said people. Why has no one ever realized this before?

I blame education.

[Kumrann]

No that's not what I'm saying. I just think that the civil union is a good way to ensure that gay couples have equality before the law whilst they continue to battle for equal marriage.

I can wait. I also don't want to have to deal with "What? We gave you civil unions five years ago. Suddenly that's not good enough for you?"

That's nonsense too but changing public consensus takes time. Wheras I think in most liberal soceities support for civil unions is an overwhelming majority support for same equal marriage is I would say a 65/35 split. Unforunately people need to be won over and that takes lots of time and effort.

[Liriena]

and how does allowing same sex marriage diminish that interest?

Recognition of same-sex marriages normalizes non-traditional families and the separation of children from their biological parents. That is a bad thing.

Are you saying that single parents, adoptive parents and alternative close relatives serving as guardians don't exist already?

That said, you're not asking the right question. You have to demonstrate that allowing same-sex marriage has a net positive impact on society, not merely that it won't have a negative impact on a particular state interest.

I say that allowing same-sex marriage will improve the quality of life of same-sex couples and their children, and on top of that it may also help hinder the spread of STI's and HIV/AIDS by making it legally and economically easier and even beneficial for same-sex couples to remain together.

[Farnhamia]

and how does allowing same sex marriage diminish that interest?

Recognition of same-sex marriages normalizes non-traditional families and the separation of children from their biological parents. That is a bad thing.

That said, you're not asking the right question. You have to demonstrate that allowing same-sex marriage has a net positive impact on society, not merely that it won't have a negative impact on a particular state interest.

Just for one thing, gay people being able to marry will mean an increase in the purchases of wedding apparel, the renting of facilities, etc. Bakeries (some of them, anyway), florists (some of them, anyway), all sorts of people will see an increase in business. That stimulates the economy. Allowing us to marry and to adopt increases the chances for orphaned children to find good homes. And the most positive impact is that we no longer have a group of citizens who have fewer rights than the majority simply because they are homosexual. That in itself is enough.

[Ifreann]

The term matters to people. It means that you are entitled to what others can have, that you are just as valid as another. If gay people were to be in power and denied you the right to have a "marriage," I feel it is safe to presume you would be outraged.

You say that the term matters to people. If so then i am saying that those who have been using it for thousands of years should be dictating its meaning.

That would be English speakers in general. The religious don't own the word "marriage".

---

No public interest? You mean the mental and physical well-being and socioeconomic stability of LGBT people and their families are not of public interest?

You're begging the question by assuming that, in the absence of same-sex marriage, LGBT people will be worse off. I don't think that's necessarily the case.

And that's self evidently wrong.

[The Tundra]

and how does allowing same sex marriage diminish that interest?

Recognition of same-sex marriages normalizes non-traditional families and the separation of children from their biological parents. That is a bad thing.

That said, you're not asking the right question. You have to demonstrate that allowing same-sex marriage has a net positive impact on society, not merely that it won't have a negative impact on a particular state interest.

here is a net positive; increase in Adoption rates. with the current price of having a surrogate birth, or an immaculate conception, it would be cheaper and better for the state that homosexuals or people who otherwise can't have kids be able to adopt kids who are unwanted by their biological parents. under that, both homosexaul parents will have guardianship over the child, and be the next of kin for the homosexual (if they were to be infirmed or otherwise hospitalized).

we shouldn't have the prove that its a net positive, because frankly, it should be a right of every god damn person in the united states to be treated equally under the law. allowing same sex marriage will also bring in more tax revenue for the state, and doesn't infact remove kids from their biological parents. these kids were given up by their biological parents, so i don't know why you're advocating them to not have a healthy and happy home.

[Farnhamia]

I can wait. I also don't want to have to deal with "What? We gave you civil unions five years ago. Suddenly that's not good enough for you?"

That's nonsense too but changing public consensus takes time. Wheras I think in most liberal soceities support for civil unions is an overwhelming majority support for same equal marriage is I would say a 65/35 split. Unforunately people need to be won over and that takes lots of time and effort.

I can wait for people to learn to share.

[Auralia]

You're begging the question by assuming that, in the absence of same-sex marriage, LGBT people will be worse off. I don't think that's necessarily the case.

How are we not worse off by being told our relationships are inferior to opposite-sex ones, that we don't have the right to adopt, and don't recieve legal benefits? Are we not worse off when our loved ones are dying in the hospital and we aren't allowed to see them because you believe our love is inferior?

Same-sex relationships do not serve a state interest, and therefore should not receive legal recognition or protection. I'm sorry if that hurts the feelings of LGBT people, but I don't consider that to be a serious issue.

By the way, I don't have a problem with visitation rights for those in same-sex relationships, but state recognition of those relationships is not required to facilitate that right. A person should be allowed to see whomever they want while they are in a hospital.

[Olthar]

Well what about Sappho's Third Law of Lesbian Motion?

That's fringe poliscience at best. True academics only accede the first of Sappho's Laws.

Now that is just absurd! How can anyone reconcile the rainbow wave function with quantum scattered gaydiation without Sappho's Second Law?

[Caecuser]

How are we not worse off by being told our relationships are inferior to opposite-sex ones, that we don't have the right to adopt, and don't recieve legal benefits? Are we not worse off when our loved ones are dying in the hospital and we aren't allowed to see them because you believe our love is inferior?

Same-sex relationships do not serve a state interest, and therefore should not receive legal recognition or protection. I'm sorry if that hurts the feelings of LGBT people, but I don't consider that to be a serious issue.

By the way, I don't have a problem with visitation rights for those in same-sex relationships, but state recognition of those relationships is not required to facilitate that right. A person should be allowed to see whomever they want while they are in a hospital.

What about opposite-sex relationships?

[Threlizdun]

What makes you think that opposition to civil unions is a result of homophobia and opposition to same-sex marriage isn't?

Well I think some people from a religious background may oppose gay marriage because they think that marriage is something scared. However still think that gay couples should enjoy the exact same treatment that Heterosexual couples do. If you look at the dialogue between people who oppose same sex marriage and those who support it a lot of time you hear "I don't object to gay couples having the same rights legally as straight couples but you can't redefine the word marriage speil" t's not a point of view I agree with but I don't think that everyone who opposes same sex marriage is necessarily homophobic. However if you say I dissagree with civil unions because I don't think gay couples should be equal before the law then you are.

They can't believe in granting same-sex couples the same rights while not giving them marriage. Why they are homophobes doesn't change the fact that they are homophobes.

That's nonsense too but changing public consensus takes time. Wheras I think in most liberal soceities support for civil unions is an overwhelming majority support for same equal marriage is I would say a 65/35 split. Unforunately people need to be won over and that takes lots of time and effort.

The majority support marriage equality. There is literally no reason not to grant marriage equality. Only granting civil unions is appeasing a minority while going against the will of the majority. Your entire premise is flawed.

[Ifreann]

How are we not worse off by being told our relationships are inferior to opposite-sex ones, that we don't have the right to adopt, and don't recieve legal benefits? Are we not worse off when our loved ones are dying in the hospital and we aren't allowed to see them because you believe our love is inferior?

Same-sex relationships do not serve a state interest...

Of course they do.

[The Emerald Dawn]

That's fringe poliscience at best. True academics only accede the first of Sappho's Laws.

Now that is just absurd! How can anyone reconcile the rainbow wave function with quantum scattered gaydiation without Sappho's Second Law?

Considering the recent discovery of the Higgs Heteroson, we believe that the rainbow wave function never actually creates the hypothesized gaydiation, and instead mass is granted by the subobservable action called "Hetero-mass-injection".

[Liriena]

Same-sex relationships do not serve a state interest...

Of course they do.

No they don't. Auralia asserted it, and repeatedly so. That's proof enough for me.

[Farnhamia]

Of course they do.

No they don't. Auralia asserted it, and repeatedly so. That's proof enough for me.

Who are you and what have you done with Liriena?

[Threlizdun]

How are we not worse off by being told our relationships are inferior to opposite-sex ones, that we don't have the right to adopt, and don't recieve legal benefits? Are we not worse off when our loved ones are dying in the hospital and we aren't allowed to see them because you believe our love is inferior?

Same-sex relationships do not serve a state interest, and therefore should not receive legal recognition or protection. I'm sorry if that hurts the feelings of LGBT people, but I don't consider that to be a serious issue.

The wellbeing of its citizens isn't in the state's interests? The same capacity to raise children you said was the sole reason for protecting opposite-sex couples is no longer important when same-sex couples do it? Yes, denial of a basic human right and telling you that your love isn't equal to others is a very serious issue.

By the way, I don't have a problem with visitation rights for those in same-sex relationships, but state recognition of those relationships is not required to facilitate that right.

Why the hell not?

A person should be allowed to see whomever they want while they are in a hospital

No, there is a reason they don't allow simply anyone to have free access to everyone in the hospital. In emergency situations where the patient and their caretakers can't deal with the added stress and comotion of visitors, it is important to only allow those who are extremely close to the patient to be able to see them.

[Oneracon]

How are we not worse off by being told our relationships are inferior to opposite-sex ones, that we don't have the right to adopt, and don't recieve legal benefits? Are we not worse off when our loved ones are dying in the hospital and we aren't allowed to see them because you believe our love is inferior?

Same-sex relationships do not serve a state interest, and therefore should not receive legal recognition or protection. I'm sorry if that hurts the feelings of LGBT people, but I don't consider that to be a serious issue.

Improvement of the economy through taxation and increased family-related spending, lessened burden on the state as rates of adoption increase, and can only benefit the "institution" of marriage by acknowledging committed and loving couples (in contrast to those who enter marriage for frivolous reasons).

[Ifreann]

Of course they do.

No they don't. Auralia asserted it, and repeatedly so. That's proof enough for me.

Well, what if I assert that they do a few times?

[The Emerald Dawn]

No they don't. Auralia asserted it, and repeatedly so. That's proof enough for me.

Well, what if I assert that they do a few times?

Giggity.

[Farnhamia]

No they don't. Auralia asserted it, and repeatedly so. That's proof enough for me.

Well, what if I assert that they do a few times?

Michael Keaton appears.

[Ifreann]

Well, what if I assert that they do a few times?

Michael Keaton appears.

Do I have to be in front of a mirror?

[Olthar]

Now that is just absurd! How can anyone reconcile the rainbow wave function with quantum scattered gaydiation without Sappho's Second Law?

Considering the recent discovery of the Higgs Heteroson, we believe that the rainbow wave function never actually creates the hypothesized gaydiation, and instead mass is granted by the subobservable action called "Hetero-mass-injection".

Oh not this again! "Hetero-mass-injection?" That's just sci-fi lunacy! There's never been any evidence for it, and there never will be! It's just a ridiculous pipe dream cooked up by a druggie fifty years ago. It has no place in a discussion about legitimate science!

[Auralia]

Just for one thing, gay people being able to marry will mean an increase in the purchases of wedding apparel, the renting of facilities, etc. Bakeries (some of them, anyway), florists (some of them, anyway), all sorts of people will see an increase in business. That stimulates the economy.

That's true, but I would argue that the damage to traditional marriage and family structures outweighs the economic benefits of same-sex marriages.

Allowing us to marry and to adopt increases the chances for orphaned children to find good homes.

A better solution to the shortage of adoptive parents would be to promote adoption among opposite-sex couples and to reduce the causes of orphaning, such as poverty and father abandonment.

And the most positive impact is that we no longer have a group of citizens who have fewer rights than the majority simply because they are homosexual. That in itself is enough.

That's not a positive. Civil marriage is effectively a state subsidy granted to those who fulfill specific criteria, in order to accomplish a public interest. It is not a right, and there is nothing wrong with depriving those who do not fulfill those criteria of that subsidy.