Should homosexuals have the right to marry?

[Muravyets]

Aww...little Don Juan Hammurab! You'll be a grandpa before you know it.

Last month he toddled over to a woman (likely an off-duty stripper) in line at a Subway Sandwhich shop on Paradise in Vegas, and before I could stop him, he pulled up his shirt and dropped his pants. She started gushing at how adorable he was and asked if she could pick him up.

I hope the little fucker knows there is a limited window of time for that shit.

A toddler did that to me and a friend in a park once. It was adorable! We gave him a lot of the wrong kind of encouragement. Guess how we'd have reacted if he was older? Yes, I admit it -- women are cruel. But you guys are so cute...when you're that young.

[Nobel Hobos]

Aww...little Don Juan Hammurab! You'll be a grandpa before you know it.

Last month he toddled over to a woman (likely an off-duty stripper) in line at a Subway Sandwhich shop on Paradise in Vegas, and before I could stop him, he pulled up his shirt and dropped his pants. She started gushing at how adorable he was and asked if she could pick him up.

I hope the little fucker knows there is a limited window of time for that shit.

A toddler did that to me and a friend in a park once. It was adorable! We gave him a lot of the wrong kind of encouragement. Guess how we'd have reacted if he was older? Yes, I admit it -- women are cruel. But you guys are so cute...when you're that young.

Aren't we just! Like pigtails on a little girl, so cute you just want to get a ribbon and tie a little bow around them.

[Gauthier]

Aww...little Don Juan Hammurab! You'll be a grandpa before you know it.

Last month he toddled over to a woman (likely an off-duty stripper) in line at a Subway Sandwhich shop on Paradise in Vegas, and before I could stop him, he pulled up his shirt and dropped his pants. She started gushing at how adorable he was and asked if she could pick him up.

I hope the little fucker knows there is a limited window of time for that shit.

A toddler did that to me and a friend in a park once. It was adorable! We gave him a lot of the wrong kind of encouragement. Guess how we'd have reacted if he was older? Yes, I admit it -- women are cruel. But you guys are so cute...when you're that young.

Could have sent the kids to Neverland. Or a cathedral. That would have learned them of that habit real quick.

[Desperate Measures]

The slippery slope arguments are right!! Talk about gay marriage long enough and our kids end up with ribbon tied around their genitalia and prancing around Neverland or a church altar!

[Dempublicents1]

I believe that they should have the right to marry as long as the clergy-member, ship captain, or whomever has the legal right to perform a union can refuse if their beliefs forbid it.

I agree, unless that person is directly acting on behalf of the government. A justice of the peace should not have the legal right to refuse anyone who can legally be married.

No thats not the argument i am making is irreverent what hurts people, but i am done with this for today I've got something to do if you go back though these post you'll see that the argument presented is at least formally correct you can deny the premises but it is logically sound

No, it isn't. You argue that the purpose of marriage is procreation. You then argue that some couples who cannot procreate together should be allowed to marry while other couples who cannot procreate together should not. When pressed for a distinction that makes this clear contradiction logical, you cannot provide one.

You have not called me on anything, I've already said this isn't the case if am appealing to something outside of myself that i believe exist in reality then its not because i said so

Unless you can prove that the thing you are appealing to does exist and that you are correct about what it wants, then all you are giving us is that you say so.

That simply not true I said that objective reality is self-evident to deny objective reality is a contradiction

If it were truly self-evident, there wouldn't be so much disagreement over it.

[Ottoleo]

The slippery slope arguments are right!! Talk about gay marriage long enough and our kids end up with ribbon tied around their genitalia and prancing around Neverland or a church altar!

Now that's a little far-fetched...

[Desperate Measures]

The slippery slope arguments are right!! Talk about gay marriage long enough and our kids end up with ribbon tied around their genitalia and prancing around Neverland or a church altar!

Now that's a little far-fetched...

Ban gay marriage and ban pink and red ribbon!

[Ottoleo]

The slippery slope arguments are right!! Talk about gay marriage long enough and our kids end up with ribbon tied around their genitalia and prancing around Neverland or a church altar!

Now that's a little far-fetched...

Ban gay marriage and ban pink and red ribbon!

Now why, pray tell, would you do that? You're taking away the rights of thousands for your own selfish comforts.

[Desperate Measures]

The slippery slope arguments are right!! Talk about gay marriage long enough and our kids end up with ribbon tied around their genitalia and prancing around Neverland or a church altar!

Now that's a little far-fetched...

Ban gay marriage and ban pink and red ribbon!

Now why, pray tell, would you do that? You're taking away the rights of thousands for your own selfish comforts.

I'm sorry.

[Dempublicents1]

It seems I have made the mistake of taking on faith the assertion that adoption in the US is denied to same-sex couples.

I shouldn't accept such things as true, just because they come from an ideological ally.

There are some portions of the US in which a same-sex couple cannot adopt. However, a single person can adopt, to my knowledge, throughout the entire country. Part of the problem with the inability of same-sex couples to marry is that one's partner often cannot become a legal parent of one's child (whether said child is biological or adopted). Thus, the children of same-sex couples receive less legal protection.

Is there any merit in the rest of that post you replied to ? I did switch to the example of adoption rights half-way through...

I don't think there is, mostly because there is no "individual right to be treated as a married person." The legal construct of marriage is specifically designed to, in essence, merge two individuals, for may purposes, into a single legal entity. As such, they essentially begin to share many individual rights (ie. property rights, enforcement of contracts, avoiding self-incrimination). Those that they do not share are extended by making the other person the default in the case that one individual cannot speak for himself (ie. next-of-kin, power of attorney, medical proxy). The entire legal purpose of marriage is to protect the rights of two individuals who, in many ways, no longer live as fully distinct individuals. They have chosen instead to build a life, home, and family together - and wish to be legally recognized as such.

[Redwulf]

Gay marriage is allowed in nations as diverse as Canada and Mexico, and neither have experienced any particular problems.

Have you forgotten the horrors of Canada's decent into anarchy when gay marriage caused the country to be attacked by time traveling gorillas riding cybernetic dinosaurs?



Oh, wait, that didn't happen. You're right no problems caused by gay marriage.

[Ottoleo]

The slippery slope arguments are right!! Talk about gay marriage long enough and our kids end up with ribbon tied around their genitalia and prancing around Neverland or a church altar!

Now that's a little far-fetched...

Ban gay marriage and ban pink and red ribbon!

Now why, pray tell, would you do that? You're taking away the rights of thousands for your own selfish comforts.

I'm sorry.

It's the basis of your argument. Not saying I am a homosexual wishing to marry in the United States, but they ought to have rights.

[Redwulf]

No. Like it or not Marriage is a religious not governmental issue.

Wrong.

If it were correct it would actually support gay marriage as well as plural marriage due to the religions that allow such things.

[North Calaveras]

how many times do i have to say this?

Its about equality under the law, idk why these good-law abiding christians can't see this. We aren't going to force you to do marrages lol.

[Ottoleo]

No. Like it or not Marriage is a religious not governmental issue.

Wrong.

If it were correct it would actually support gay marriage as well as plural marriage due to the religions that allow such things.

Depends on the religion, actually.

[Setebuhza]

Gay marriage is allowed in nations as diverse as Canada and Mexico, and neither have experienced any particular problems.

Have you forgotten the horrors of Canada's decent into anarchy when gay marriage caused the country to be attacked by time traveling gorillas riding cybernetic dinosaurs?



Oh, wait, that didn't happen. You're right no problems caused by gay marriage.

Actually, if you look at countries that have gay marriage, such as Canada, they weathered this economic crisis fairly well. Clearly, god loves fags.

[Ottoleo]

I pity the anti-gay marriage activists right now...

[Nobel Hobos]

It seems I have made the mistake of taking on faith the assertion that adoption in the US is denied to same-sex couples.

I shouldn't accept such things as true, just because they come from an ideological ally.

There are some portions of the US in which a same-sex couple cannot adopt. However, a single person can adopt, to my knowledge, throughout the entire country. Part of the problem with the inability of same-sex couples to marry is that one's partner often cannot become a legal parent of one's child (whether said child is biological or adopted). Thus, the children of same-sex couples receive less legal protection.

So you're saying that a couple cannot adopt but that either of them individually can. Regardless of what kind of partner they have: they could adopt as an individual, single parent.

Why couldn't one of them adopt the child as a single parent, and the other be a delegated guardian when required ? I'm thinking that the only downside would be if the partner who did adopt were to die, the other would not be recognized as a parent, and the power to delegate that responsibilty would perish with the dead person.

And I strongly suspect that in practice, a couple is preferred over a single person when applying to adopt. It should be on merit (probably the merit of whichever partner is LESS worthy) but in practice ... is it ?

Is there any merit in the rest of that post you replied to ? I did switch to the example of adoption rights half-way through...

I don't think there is, mostly because there is no "individual right to be treated as a married person." The legal construct of marriage is specifically designed to, in essence, merge two individuals, for may purposes, into a single legal entity. As such, they essentially begin to share many individual rights (ie. property rights, enforcement of contracts, avoiding self-incrimination). Those that they do not share are extended by making the other person the default in the case that one individual cannot speak for himself (ie. next-of-kin, power of attorney, medical proxy). The entire legal purpose of marriage is to protect the rights of two individuals who, in many ways, no longer live as fully distinct individuals. They have chosen instead to build a life, home, and family together - and wish to be legally recognized as such.

OK, let me turn to income sharing. Two people have very different jobs, one has a very low income and pays no income tax, the other has a high income and pays lots.

A third person looking at that situation sees more tax being paid to the government they have the benefit of (ie the money is going to pay for things they benefit from). If those two people were married and could pool their income and be taxed on the average of it, they would pay less tax in total.

Isn't that unfair from the point of view of that third person ? Don't they have a claim against the supposedly private business of those two people, if government is going to treat them differently for being married ?

[North Calaveras]

Gay marriage is allowed in nations as diverse as Canada and Mexico, and neither have experienced any particular problems.

Have you forgotten the horrors of Canada's decent into anarchy when gay marriage caused the country to be attacked by time traveling gorillas riding cybernetic dinosaurs?



Oh, wait, that didn't happen. You're right no problems caused by gay marriage.

Actually, if you look at countries that have gay marriage, such as Canada, they weathered this economic crisis fairly well. Clearly, god loves fags.

socialist countrys have been known to have better recovery against economic problems, but that system also has its own problems. Socialist: a car slowing down for a stop sign : Capitalist: Car hitting the breaks at a stop sign. Both usually survive but the socialist dosn't get hit as bad, but as i said the socialist style has its own problems.

[Desperate Measures]

The slippery slope arguments are right!! Talk about gay marriage long enough and our kids end up with ribbon tied around their genitalia and prancing around Neverland or a church altar!

Now that's a little far-fetched...

Ban gay marriage and ban pink and red ribbon!

Now why, pray tell, would you do that? You're taking away the rights of thousands for your own selfish comforts.

I'm sorry.

It's the basis of your argument. Not saying I am a homosexual wishing to marry in the United States, but they ought to have rights.

Yes you have completely changed my mind. Gay marriage is the next step for equal rights in a country that has fought countless battles in the hope of becoming a more free and just society.

[Setebuhza]

Gay marriage is allowed in nations as diverse as Canada and Mexico, and neither have experienced any particular problems.

Have you forgotten the horrors of Canada's decent into anarchy when gay marriage caused the country to be attacked by time traveling gorillas riding cybernetic dinosaurs?



Oh, wait, that didn't happen. You're right no problems caused by gay marriage.

Actually, if you look at countries that have gay marriage, such as Canada, they weathered this economic crisis fairly well. Clearly, god loves fags.

socialist countrys have been known to have better recovery against economic problems, but that system also has its own problems. Socialist: a car slowing down for a stop sign : Capitalist: Car hitting the breaks at a stop sign. Both usually survive but the socialist dosn't get hit as bad, but as i said the socialist style has its own problems.

If you honestly think Canada is a socialist country you either
a) Don't know what socialism is.
b) Don't know a thing about Canada.

Which is it?

[North Calaveras]

Gay marriage is allowed in nations as diverse as Canada and Mexico, and neither have experienced any particular problems.

Have you forgotten the horrors of Canada's decent into anarchy when gay marriage caused the country to be attacked by time traveling gorillas riding cybernetic dinosaurs?



Oh, wait, that didn't happen. You're right no problems caused by gay marriage.

Actually, if you look at countries that have gay marriage, such as Canada, they weathered this economic crisis fairly well. Clearly, god loves fags.

socialist countrys have been known to have better recovery against economic problems, but that system also has its own problems. Socialist: a car slowing down for a stop sign : Capitalist: Car hitting the breaks at a stop sign. Both usually survive but the socialist dosn't get hit as bad, but as i said the socialist style has its own problems.

If you honestly think Canada is a socialist country you either
a) Don't know what socialism is.
b) Don't know a thing about Canada.

Which is it?

Sorry, I didn't mean there entirely socialist but they have socialist qualitys, dosn't make them evil or anything. Sorry you took such offense to that.

[Ottoleo]

The slippery slope arguments are right!! Talk about gay marriage long enough and our kids end up with ribbon tied around their genitalia and prancing around Neverland or a church altar!

Now that's a little far-fetched...

Ban gay marriage and ban pink and red ribbon!

Now why, pray tell, would you do that? You're taking away the rights of thousands for your own selfish comforts.

I'm sorry.

It's the basis of your argument. Not saying I am a homosexual wishing to marry in the United States, but they ought to have rights.

Yes you have completely changed my mind. Gay marriage is the next step for equal rights in country that has fought countless battles in the hope of becoming a more free and just society.

Is that sarcasm? The internet baffles me.

[Nobel Hobos]

It seems I have made the mistake of taking on faith the assertion that adoption in the US is denied to same-sex couples.

I shouldn't accept such things as true, just because they come from an ideological ally.

There are some portions of the US in which a same-sex couple cannot adopt. However, a single person can adopt, to my knowledge, throughout the entire country. Part of the problem with the inability of same-sex couples to marry is that one's partner often cannot become a legal parent of one's child (whether said child is biological or adopted). Thus, the children of same-sex couples receive less legal protection.

So you're saying that a couple cannot adopt but that either of them individually can. Regardless of what kind of partner they have: they could adopt as an individual, single parent.

Why couldn't one of them adopt the child as a single parent, and the other be a delegated guardian when required ? I'm thinking that the only downside would be if the partner who did adopt were to die, the other would not be recognized as a parent, and the power to delegate that responsibilty would perish with the dead person.

And I strongly suspect that in practice, a couple is preferred over a single person when applying to adopt. It should be on merit (probably the merit of whichever partner is LESS worthy) but in practice ... is it ?

Is there any merit in the rest of that post you replied to ? I did switch to the example of adoption rights half-way through...

I don't think there is, mostly because there is no "individual right to be treated as a married person." The legal construct of marriage is specifically designed to, in essence, merge two individuals, for may purposes, into a single legal entity. As such, they essentially begin to share many individual rights (ie. property rights, enforcement of contracts, avoiding self-incrimination). Those that they do not share are extended by making the other person the default in the case that one individual cannot speak for himself (ie. next-of-kin, power of attorney, medical proxy). The entire legal purpose of marriage is to protect the rights of two individuals who, in many ways, no longer live as fully distinct individuals. They have chosen instead to build a life, home, and family together - and wish to be legally recognized as such.

OK, let me turn to income sharing. Two people have very different jobs, one has a very low income and pays no income tax, the other has a high income and pays lots.

A third person looking at that situation sees more tax being paid to the government they have the benefit of (ie the money is going to pay for things they benefit from). If those two people were married and could pool their income and be taxed on the average of it, they would pay less tax in total.

Isn't that unfair from the point of view of that third person ? Don't they have a claim against the supposedly private business of those two people, if government is going to treat them differently for being married ?

(Reply to self, to clarify)

It may seem that I'm trying to "rescue" the orginal point I made, but actually I'm just trying another tack.

Doesn't government open the door to precisely what we say doesn't exist — consequences for third parties of two people being married — when it grants a privelege to a married couple ?

Right not to testify against the partner: bad for the person who has a crime committed against them by one of the partners.
Income splitting: less tax paid by those people, thus less benefit to a third party.
Visiting rights outside general visitor hours in hospital: bad for the third party who is sick in the next bed in the ward.

[Desperate Measures]

Ottoleo: I wouldn't worry. It all turned out ok.