gay marriage

[It is Fake]

He is arguing one specific element you raised, but you are conflating his response with your multiple points.

BTW while I don't have a problem with homosexuals joining together to live the rest of their lives I'd be more than happy to engage in a small debate on gay marriage for the sake of enlightenment.

[Omega Supreme]

i wouldnt know what im agreeing to because i dont know what you are trying to say. its hard to tell between the appeals to authority and red herrings that have nothing to do with the subject. do i agree with you that anyone who isnt normal shouldnt marry, people who are unable to bear children shouldnt marry, and that allowing gay people to get married will make polygamous marriages a thing, (which is an interesting discussion but not for this thread) then no, i dont agree with you. the definition of marriage is whatever someone wants to make of it- as long as it falls within the law of its country.

Alex, I'm trying to lay down definitions so we are all clear with what we are talking about. If you can't agree with some of my points then tell me your definitions so we can start a true discussion.

[Omega Supreme]

you realise getting married somewhere where its legal does not automatically make it legally binding in another country right? not to mention the cost involved in such a thing. if you want a marriage ceremony there is no reason you couldnt have one anyway, but being allowed to have a pretty wedding is not what this is about, its about equality.

Which is why I laid out that one can guarantee certain right by other means. I said if it is about peace of mind then go somewhere else to get married. Try not to get emotional about this.

[NeilG]

Which is why I laid out that one can guarantee certain right by other means. I said if it is about peace of mind then go somewhere else to get married. Try not to get emotional about this.

There's no logic in going somewhere else for that, you can have a ceremony that isn't recognized by government anywhere, including your living room. I think to a certain extent, recognition and respect for the relationship is what they are after more than anything and that is only acquired through formal, legal recognition in the country you live in. There are also certain tangible things of course. I often hear hospital visitation rights bandied about. But even if your argument holds that all the tangible rights could be acquired through other means, why should they have to go through the hassle when they could do one-stop shopping at the altar like hetero couples?

[Omega Supreme]

There's no logic in going somewhere else for that, you can have a ceremony that isn't recognized by government anywhere, including your living room. I think to a certain extent, recognition and respect for the relationship is what they are after more than anything and that is only acquired through formal, legal recognition in the country you live in. There are also certain tangible things of course. I often hear hospital visitation rights bandied about. But even if your argument holds that all the tangible rights could be acquired through other means, why should they have to go through the hassle when they could do one-stop shopping at the altar like hetero couples?

Agreed, but I believe you already answered your own question. Like minded people should congregate with like minded people. (Which is why you'll never see me at a hippie fest....to soon?).

My point is more directed at the reasons why many say they should allow gay marriage. The answers are already there and new legislation is not needed. Unlike Erezb, where it becomes a religious point, common law definition should be applied. (I probably missed my point but I have this person trying to talk to me while I'm trying to finish my thoughts.)

[Devil]

Most people say there is no logical reason to prevent homosexual marriage. Logic is actually the only reason we should not have homosexual marriage.

There are certain criteria or points that need to be made and concede to without emotion but by pure fact.

1. Is homosexuality normal?

answer: No.

While we have to admit that it's very normal and it does not make a person bad or good homosexuality is not normal. In the sense that a person born of auburn hair, with dwarfism, with two different color eyes, is not normal.

2. What is the definition of marriage?

answer:
It depends upon who you ask but if we were to take this out of the religious context then it's a legal binding between two people as acknowledge by a specific community.

Now if we were to agree that a marriage between two people of the same sex is legal then are we regulated to define that because, as it stands, we find one person marrying a couple, and couples marrying a couples. Yes, we need to truly define this law. If we were to agree to at least one person to one person then to what advantage does the community benefit from this marriage? An unusual question? No, a lot of marriages we performed as a union between two families.

It can be argued that marriage is observed by the community as a legal binding to say that the offspring is the legal and observed joining of the male and female. How do we determine this in cases of same sex? Adoption? Artificial means? You don't have to be married for these two things to happen.

What about tax purposes? The Roman Empire instituted tax exempts for married couples and even more in case of children. This was to help motivate the perpetuation of it's society. These tax breaks are given for single parents but why should a same sex couple benefit from those tax breaks?

Can one gain marriage advantages without being married?

Through wills and powers of attorney, common law couples and same sex couples can gain certain powers over their significant others properties and needs as outlined by these legal documents. Again we have to ask the question, why would we need marriage if you don't need it to secure these rights?

There are plenty high profile couples that have had children, had great relationships, but never got married.

Homosexual marriage makes no sense, there are no benefits except piece of mind, and in that case, move to an area that will marry you. Aside from that it should be a moot point.

Lastly, most people stand on these points as a moral certainty; either condemning homosexual marriage or condoning it. Those who condone sometimes believe themselves ethically better yet when we started conversation I was ignorantly called a bigot. I do not hate nor am I intolerant of homosexuality or homosexual marriage. So when we automatically point a finger in the opposite direction because a person doesn't have the same beliefs as you aren't we being a tad hypocritical. Irony?

(your turn-typed in haste between my classes so excuse grammar misspellings and rambling on my part)

Homosexuality is completely normal. Homosexuality is a natural genetic variation found in the human species. That variation could actually be an evolutionary advantage if, for instance a new disease came along that could only be transmitted through heterosexual intercourse. Theoretically it could guarantee survival of members of both sexes who could later procreate. Genetic diversity is a good thing and helps maintain the strength of the species.

The current legal definition of marriage is irrelevant to the discussion of whether allowing gays to marry is morally right. The law of the United States is the law of the people. It is fluid and it is most definitely not infallible. Laws that are wrong need to be changed. Otherwise slavery would still be legal and alcohol would still be illegal.

Your point about determining the legal parent of a child is without merit. Changing the law to allow gay marriage would require no change in this regard. If gay couples adopt, they would go through the normal channels for adoption. If they had a child by other means, they would go through the normal channels.

A more legitimate concern, which you did not mention, would be how to determine which parent gets custody in case of divorce. Courts typically award custody to the mother. The decision would be more difficult if there were no mother or two mothers. However, this is simply a detail that needs to be sorted out. It shouldn't be a barrier to civil rights.

Using the Roman Empire's taxation policies as an appeal to authority will get you nowhere fast. Did you know Vespasian instituted a tax on urine collection? Does that mean we need a piss tax? I think not.

Perhaps Rome did offer tax breaks to parents for the purpose of perpetuating society. I'll take your word for it since I have no interest in doing the research to confirm or deny. However, I can tell you that is not the purpose of the child tax credit in the U.S. The child tax credit is intended to promote tax liability fairness based on an individual or couple's ability to pay. Wealthy taxpayers do not benefit from the child tax credit, as it is phased out as income increases over a certain point. The child tax credit has nothing to do with perpetuating society. Why should homosexual couples of modest means not receive the same fair treatment based on their ability to pay?

Now is the time to recognize the rights of homosexuals. Just as we recognized human beings should not be held as slaves. Just as we recognized women should be allowed to vote. Denying the basic right of two consenting homosexual adults the free choice of marriage is just as out of place in a free society as racial and sexual discrimination.

[Tranquil Suit]

Devil was crying blood tears whilst writing that.

[It is Fake]

Devil was crying blood tears whilst writing that.

Probably, because he knew you, bobby, hedge and a quite a few others can't separate bigotry from racist and racism.

[ermghoti]

I don't understand any of this. I ran the calculations through my Internet Simulator five times, this thread should have devolved into people drawing dicks on unicorns like three hours ago.

[It is Fake]

That was all used up in the transgender thread.

[Omega Supreme]

Homosexuality is completely normal. Homosexuality is a natural genetic variation found in the human species. That variation could actually be an evolutionary advantage if, for instance a new disease came along that could only be transmitted through heterosexual intercourse. Theoretically it could guarantee survival of members of both sexes who could later procreate. Genetic diversity is a good thing and helps maintain the strength of the species.

You are confusing natural versus normality Homosexuality is not normal as laid forth by my other examples. Whether something happens natural is not the issue.

The current legal definition of marriage is irrelevant to the discussion of whether allowing gays to marry is morally right. The law of the United States is the law of the people. It is fluid and it is most definitely not infallible. Laws that are wrong need to be changed. Otherwise slavery would still be legal and alcohol would still be illegal.

So why allow homosexual marriage?

Your point about determining the legal parent of a child is without merit. Changing the law to allow gay marriage would require no change in this regard. If gay couples adopt, they would go through the normal channels for adoption. If they had a child by other means, they would go through the normal channels.

That wasn't my point, you actually just proved my point. You don't have to be married to adopt or become artificially inseminated. So why allow homosexual marriage?

A more legitimate concern, which you did not mention, would be how to determine which parent gets custody in case of divorce. Courts typically award custody to the mother. The decision would be more difficult if there were no mother or two mothers. However, this is simply a detail that needs to be sorted out. It shouldn't be a barrier to civil rights.

Not see why I would bring it up.

Using the Roman Empire's taxation policies as an appeal to authority will get you nowhere fast. Did you know Vespasian instituted a tax on urine collection? Does that mean we need a piss tax? I think not.

I'm simply bringing up the idea of where tax breaks came from. An appeal to authority? I believe you may be reaching for that one. I brought it up because some bring up the point of homosexual couples getting married could be afforded the same tax breaks and rights that married couples have. No appeal to authority.

Perhaps Rome did offer tax breaks to parents for the purpose of perpetuating society. I'll take your word for it since I have no interest in doing the research to confirm or deny. However, I can tell you that is not the purpose of the child tax credit in the U.S. The child tax credit is intended to promote tax liability fairness based on an individual or couple's ability to pay. Wealthy taxpayers do not benefit from the child tax credit, as it is phased out as income increases over a certain point. The child tax credit has nothing to do with perpetuating society. Why should homosexual couples of modest means not receive the same fair treatment based on their ability to pay?

Again, why have homosexual marriage?

Now is the time to recognize the rights of homosexuals. Just as we recognized human beings should not be held as slaves. Just as we recognized women should be allowed to vote. Denying the basic right of two consenting homosexual adults the free choice of marriage is just as out of place in a free society as racial and sexual discrimination.

How so? Marriage is simply an institution. As I have declared, if you want to get married do so. There's nothing really stopping you. But one is arguing that they should gain all the rights that traditional married couples do. My counter point is that they can already obtain those rights. Nobody is stopping a homosexual from: voting, owning property etc. Homosexuals can live together if they want. What is the purpose of legalizing homosexual marriage?

[Devil]

What is the purpose of legalizing homosexual marriage?

I think all your block quoting can be boiled down to this question.

The primary answer is a very simple one. Equality. Why should anyone be prohibited from marrying any consenting adult they choose?

If you're looking for a more specific and tangible answer, the aforementioned Social Security survivor benefits are a good example. If the government fails to recognize the right of homosexuals to marry, then the government is denying homosexuals a level of spousal protection that heterosexual couples enjoy. How can you justify that?

Oh, and I'm not going back to edit the double text anymore so you bitches get double the pleasure until it's fixed.

What is the purpose of legalizing homosexual marriage?

I think all your block quoting can be boiled down to this question.

The primary answer is a very simple one. Equality. Why should anyone be prohibited from marrying any consenting adult they choose?

If you're looking for a more specific and tangible answer, the aforementioned Social Security survivor benefits are a good example. If the government fails to recognize the right of homosexuals to marry, then the government is denying homosexuals a level of spousal protection that heterosexual couples enjoy. How can you justify that?

Oh, and I'm not going back to edit the double text anymore so you bitches get double the pleasure until it's fixed.

[Omega Supreme]

I think all your block quoting can be boiled down to this question.

The primary answer is a very simple one. Equality. Why should anyone be prohibited from marrying any consenting adult they choose?

If you're looking for a more specific and tangible answer, the aforementioned Social Security survivor benefits are a good example. If the government fails to recognize the right of homosexuals to marry, then the government is denying homosexuals a level of spousal protection that heterosexual couples enjoy. How can you justify that?

Oh, and I'm not going back to edit the double text anymore so you bitches get double the pleasure until it's fixed.



I think all your block quoting can be boiled down to this question.

The primary answer is a very simple one. Equality. Why should anyone be prohibited from marrying any consenting adult they choose?

If you're looking for a more specific and tangible answer, the aforementioned Social Security survivor benefits are a good example. If the government fails to recognize the right of homosexuals to marry, then the government is denying homosexuals a level of spousal protection that heterosexual couples enjoy. How can you justify that?

Oh, and I'm not going back to edit the double text anymore so you bitches get double the pleasure until it's fixed.

The law is full of inequality. Last time I checked it's illegal for a consenting adult below a certain age to drink in most states in the Union. Where's the equality in that? The majority has declared that it would be illegal to sell to a person under the age of 21, yet they are a legal consenting adult. Homosexual marriage is not a necessity, nobody's "rights" are being infringed upon. Homosexual marriage should not be legal because there is no reason for it.

[Devil]

The law is full of inequality. Last time I checked it's illegal for a consenting adult below a certain age to drink in most states in the Union. Where's the equality in that? The majority has declared that it would be illegal to sell to a person under the age of 21, yet they are a legal consenting adult. Homosexual marriage is not a necessity, nobody's "rights" are being infringed upon. Homosexual marriage should not be legal because there is no reason for it.

So, you're justifying inequality on the grounds that inequality exists? Sorry, you're going to have to do better than that. Of course inequality exists. We should strive to eliminate it at every opportunity.

As for the idea that nobody's rights are being violated - guess who disagrees? The 8 federal courts that have ruled the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. And sooner or later, the Supreme Court will arrive at the same decision.

The law is full of inequality. Last time I checked it's illegal for a consenting adult below a certain age to drink in most states in the Union. Where's the equality in that? The majority has declared that it would be illegal to sell to a person under the age of 21, yet they are a legal consenting adult. Homosexual marriage is not a necessity, nobody's "rights" are being infringed upon. Homosexual marriage should not be legal because there is no reason for it.

So, you're justifying inequality on the grounds that inequality exists? Sorry, you're going to have to do better than that. Of course inequality exists. We should strive to eliminate it at every opportunity.

As for the idea that nobody's rights are being violated - guess who disagrees? The 8 federal courts that have ruled the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. And sooner or later, the Supreme Court will arrive at the same decision.

[DCS]

Homosexual marriage should not be legal because there is no reason for it.

There's no reason for heterosexual marriage also.