[Tom Bishop]

But that would reward all of the struggling single mothers who got knocked up at a young age, and we don't really care about them. We want stable nuclear families.

Why don't we care about struggling single mothers?

Because they produce undesirable offspring who are at a disadvantage in life. They will earn less and consume less.

[juner]

Wow, sounds like you're advocating a master race... Screw everyone less fortunate, right?

Also, the nuclear family of the 50's has been dead for ages. You can't claim family stability when heterosexual marriages have a divorce rate of 50%.

[Tom Bishop]

Wow, sounds like you're advocating a master race... Screw everyone less fortunate, right?

The less fortunate are allowed to marry.

Also, the nuclear family of the 50's has been dead for ages. You can't claim family stability when heterosexual marriages have a divorce rate of 50%.

What does it matter if marriages are not for life? People get bored of eating the same thing every day. Many parents split up after the kids are teenagers, or have gone to college, and that's fine. If they sense that their kids are at a point where they will be okay without them, they'll split. The parents are free to remarry and start new families. A man raising multiple families in his life, opposed to just one, is even better for society.

None of this negates the fact that it is better for the parents of children to be committed and married than not.

[Rama Set]

Wow, sounds like you're advocating a master race... Screw everyone less fortunate, right?

The less fortunate are allowed to marry.

Also, the nuclear family of the 50's has been dead for ages. You can't claim family stability when heterosexual marriages have a divorce rate of 50%.

What does it matter if marriages are not for life? People get bored of eating the same thing every day. Many parents split up after the kids are teenagers, or have gone to college, and that's fine. The parents are free to remarry and start new families. A man raising multiple families in his life, opposed to just one, is even better for society.

None of this negates the fact that it is better for the parents of children to be committed and married than not.

So then what did you mean when you said...

We want stable nuclear famii

?

It sounds like you are now advocating behavior that leads to many single mothers. You are very confusing.

[Tom Bishop]

We want stable nuclear families to raise children in. But if the kids are grown, it doesn't matter whether the parents stay together or not. It is more beneficial to society if the man leaves the woman to go start another family with a younger, fitter wife who will bear his seed.

[juner]

Misogyny at its finest. That's a pretty miserable viewpoint. Regardless, the entire argument is irrelevant, because gay marriage is now legal, just as it should be.

[Tom Bishop]

An answer to my question of why gay marriage should be legal, and why the same benefits should be given, has yet to be issued. The States argued that the ban on gay marriage has nothing to do with love.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/loving-v-marriage/391730/

Gays and lesbians—bless their naïve hearts—believe that marriage is about love, about commitment, about mutual support in sickness and health as long as we both shall live. But government, Bursch explained, knows that this is not true. Bursch was representing four states—Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee—whose constitutions ban same-sex marriage. The challengers are residents of those states, all involved in—or survivors of—committed and stable same-sex relationships. Except for their gender, they are models of the kind of family life Americans once believed to be menaced by the emergence of gay America from the shadows. But they should not win, Bursch said, because they falsely believe that “that marriage is all about love and commitment. And as a society, we can agree that that's important, but the State doesn't have any interest in that.”

The State simply rewards things that are beneficial to society. Agriculture is important, so the state gives farming subsidies to farmers. Education is important, so the state gives out grants to schools. The roads are important, so the state funds the roads. But how is homosexual love important to a society as to warrant financial benefit?

[Saddam Hussein]

You can't seriously be this gullible, junker.

[juner]

You can't seriously be this gullible, junker.

It's his MO, but it still doesn't make it less ridiculous.

[Tom Bishop]

How is homosexual love so important to a society, as to warrant financial benefit?

[juner]

How is homosexual love so important to a society, as to warrant financial benefit?

Irrelevant.

[Tau]

How is homosexual love so important to a society, as to warrant financial benefit?

They can't have kids (although that's actually untrue these days), but that just makes them orders of magnitude more likely to adopt, which takes pressure off of the foster care system. That's behavior worth rewarding.

[Tom Bishop]

How is homosexual love so important to a society, as to warrant financial benefit?

They can't have kids (although that's actually untrue these days), but that just makes them orders of magnitude more likely to adopt, which takes pressure off of the foster care system. That's behavior worth rewarding.

Gays may be able to adopt, but so can anyone. If you want to jointly adopt a child with your sister, platonically, that is admissible. The state will allow two related, unmarried people to adopt. Does it follow that you and your sister should receive marriage benefits? The state will also let you adopt alone as a single person. Should single people get marriage benefits?

The benefits of homosexual love must be looked at as a whole. The fact that 93% of opposite sex married people have children, and that the only 11% of gay couples adopt (census.gov), is enough for us to disregard the idea that homosexual love should be rewarded simply because they can adopt.

Furthermore, according to a New Family Structures Study at the University of Texas an adopted child of a lesbian couple has a 69% chance of ending up on welfare, compared to 17% of those with normal married parents.

Edit: fixed dead link

[Saddam Hussein]

Bear in mind, people, that we're going to need to increase our numbers to fight the upcoming wars with Russia and China.  We need to be discouraging the homosexuals from pursuing their unproductive lifestyles and get them breeding like everyone else.

[Rushy]

Tom, like always, has some very good points.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

Tom, like always, has some very good points.

Sarcasm?

[xasop]

What are you talking about? It is fair and we do have a say. It's called a democracy. Our ELECTED OFFICIALS spend public money on things deemed beneficial. The state spends our money on everything from Agriculture to Space Travel.

Democracy is rule by majority. Are you suggesting it is fair that the majority gets to forcibly take money away from the minority and choose how to spend it for them?

It was determined that the long term health of our economy depends on stable nuclear families creating future workers and taxpayers. Therefore, heterosexual unions were rewarded and homosexual unions were not.

It was also determined that you can tell if a woman is a witch by drowning her.

The state regulates lifestyle choices of all stripes. The state regulates drugs, prostitution, and pedophilia. The state places limits on words, dress codes, and many other things. The justification is that we elected our government to do so. This regulation is what the public consensus wants.

The fact that the powers that be have done a bad job in the past is no reason for them to continue doing a bad job in the future. Your appeal to public consensus is circular logic; if we all have to accept that public consensus is justification for a decision being the right one, then none of us can question established consensus, and public consensus can never change.

If the best you can do to counter my points is "the majority of people disagree with you", I'll take that in stride.

The state decided that heterosexual marriage was best for society, not homosexual marriage, and that trend has been upheld for many years, through many election cycles, cementing in the undeniable fact that it is what the public wants as well.

Even if you assume that our democratic process is flawless (it's not, even in Australia where things are a lot better than in the US), and that this implies most people are satisfied with all government decisions (in a representative democracy, it doesn't), the only fact this cements is that it is what more than 50% of the public wants. Why should 51% of the population dictate how the other 49% are allowed to live?

The state does have business telling us what we can and can't do and how we are to live our lives. We elected them into power to do that! I want to live safely in my neighborhood, I want to go to the store without worrying about seeing indecency, and I want my tax money to go towards things that are beneficial. The state provides guidance in the form of laws and tax benefits to ensure that we live in a safe and prosperous society.

No, nobody elects representatives to tell them how to live their lives. Some people do, however, feel the need to elect representatives to tell other people how to live their lives. When the majority do this, the minority have to play along, even if they never wanted the people in charge to be there.

The state only has business interfering when what we do stands to harm others. You can live safely in your neighbourhood because it is the state's prerogative to protect us from criminals. On the other hand, it is not the state's prerogative to prevent you from seeing "indecency". Are you suggesting that people would suddenly stop caring about social acceptability and walk around naked if the government made it legal? If so, is it really that disturbing to you if they do? You may wish to consider finding a hobby, in that case.

Everyone wants their tax money to go towards things that are beneficial. Very few people ever agree with what the government thinks is beneficial. Therefore, the only way to accomplish that goal is to lower taxes and let people spend their money the way they want to.

[Tom Bishop]

Democracy is rule by majority. Are you suggesting it is fair that the majority gets to forcibly take money away from the minority and choose how to spend it for them?

Yes, absolutely. Democracy is a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people. The majority rule represents the interests of the people, and must be upheld beyond all else.

The minority cannot rule the majority, as minority rule is antithetical to the concept of democracy. The founders of the United States worried that the majority could abuse its powers, as easily as a king, and so a framework called the Bill of Rights was drafted to preserve the basic human rights of the minority, and preserve the necessary rights to seek to become the majority and possess all the rights necessary to compete fairly in elections.The Bill of Rights establishes the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, the right to bear arms, protection from unreasonable searches, right to due process, trial by jury, and protection from excessive bails and fines.

It was also determined that you can tell if a woman is a witch by drowning her.

1600's America and England were ruled under a Monarchy, not a Democracy.

The fact that the powers that be have done a bad job in the past is no reason for them to continue doing a bad job in the future. Your appeal to public consensus is circular logic; if we all have to accept that public consensus is justification for a decision being the right one, then none of us can question established consensus, and public consensus can never change.

If the best you can do to counter my points is "the majority of people disagree with you", I'll take that in stride.

Our society is operated on a democracy. Right or wrong, that's the way things are. Our laws and regulations are the consequence of that democracy, and that is justification in and of itself.

Even if you assume that our democratic process is flawless (it's not, even in Australia where things are a lot better than in the US), and that this implies most people are satisfied with all government decisions (in a representative democracy, it doesn't), the only fact this cements is that it is what more than 50% of the public wants. Why should 51% of the population dictate how the other 49% are allowed to live?

No, nobody elects representatives to tell them how to live their lives. Some people do, however, feel the need to elect representatives to tell other people how to live their lives. When the majority do this, the minority have to play along, even if they never wanted the people in charge to be there.

You have it all wrong. The majority dictates certain things, but cannot inhibit certain freedoms. The Bill of Rights preserves basic human rights. There are certain inalienable rights the majority cannot touch.

There is nothing about homosexuals having the right to marry or receiving compensation for their activities in the Bill of Rights.

In fact, the 10th amendment of the Constitution even specifically states that any limits or rights not mentioned in the Constitution or Bill of Rights is to be decided by the States. The topic of marriage is certainly not mentioned in either document, and so it is arguably unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to dictate anything about gay marriage to the States.

The state only has business interfering when what we do stands to harm others. You can live safely in your neighbourhood because it is the state's prerogative to protect us from criminals. On the other hand, it is not the state's prerogative to prevent you from seeing "indecency". Are you suggesting that people would suddenly stop caring about social acceptability and walk around naked if the government made it legal? If so, is it really that disturbing to you if they do? You may wish to consider finding a hobby, in that case.

Everyone wants their tax money to go towards things that are beneficial. Very few people ever agree with what the government thinks is beneficial. Therefore, the only way to accomplish that goal is to lower taxes and let people spend their money the way they want to.

It doesn't matter what I agree with, or what you agree with. Our taxes currently exist, and nothing is going to change that. Marriage benefits are certainly not going away.

The matter at hand, today and now, is that homosexuals are demanding money for being homosexual, despite providing nothing to society as a group. The question posed, of which you have yet to answer in a straight manner as a supporter of marriage equality, is why must we grant homosexuals monetary rewards for the incongruous act of shacking up with another homosexual? Why should society be impressed with that?

If you are a supporter of gay marriage equality, as you appear to be, then you must justify the opinion that gays deserve all the same privileges as heterosexuals, or otherwise admit they are different, unequal, and do not deserve the same privileges.

[xasop]

Yes, absolutely. Democracy is a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people. The majority rule represents the interests of the people, and must be upheld beyond all else.

The minority cannot rule the majority, as minority rule is antithetical to the concept of democracy. The founders of the United States worried that the majority could abuse its powers, as easily as a king, and so a framework called the Bill of Rights was drafted to preserve the basic human rights of the minority, and preserve the necessary rights to seek to become the majority and possess all the rights necessary to compete fairly in elections.The Bill of Rights establishes the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, the right to bear arms, protection from unreasonable searches, right to due process, trial by jury, and protection from excessive bails and fines.

I am not asking how democracy works, nor did I suggest that the minority be allowed to rule the majority. All I asked is whether you consider majority rule, as it applies to spending other people's money, to be fair. If the answer is "yes", as it seems to be, then we have reached an impasse.

You have it all wrong. The majority dictates certain things, but cannot inhibit certain freedoms. The Bill of Rights preserves basic human rights. There are certain inalienable rights the majority cannot touch.

There is nothing about homosexuals having the right to marry or receiving compensation for their activities in the Bill of Rights.

In fact, the 10th amendment of the Constitution even specifically states that any limits or rights not mentioned in the Constitution or Bill of Rights is to be decided by the States. The topic of marriage is certainly not mentioned in either document, and so it is arguably unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to dictate anything about gay marriage to the States.

I'm not sure how any of this is relevant. Whether it is a federal or state matter has no bearing on your original question as to why same-sex marriage should be legal, nor does it in any way detract from my question as to why the majority should be allowed to dictate how minorities live their lives and spend their money. As I understand it, all of the states of the USA are democracies themselves, so the level at which that mechanism operates is hardly pertinent.

It doesn't matter what I agree with, or what you agree with. Our taxes currently exist, and nothing is going to change that. Marriage benefits are certainly not going away.

The matter at hand, today and now, is that homosexuals are demanding money for being homosexual, despite providing nothing to society as a group. The question posed, of which you have yet to answer in a straight manner as a supporter of marriage equality, is why must we grant homosexuals monetary rewards for the incongruous act of shacking up with another homosexual? Why should society be impressed with that?

No, that isn't the matter at hand. The question you asked was:

Why should gay marriage be legal?

My answer to which is:

Because the state has no business regulating people's personal lives one way or another.

We then danced around in circles for a while, with you dismissing every answer I provided and then asking the question again with some slight variation on the wording. Now we have the question you just claimed to be the one posed all along, which is asking about a case most people would not attempt to defend.

Since you seem to have lost track of the conversation somewhere along the line, let me remind you that I agreed with your point that providing marriage benefits to same-sex couples is unfair, but only to the extent that it is also unfair for mixed-sex couples. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is even more unfair than spending other people's money, so for as long as that unfair policy exists, it should be applied to same-sex couples as well.

If you are a supporter of gay marriage equality, as you appear to be, then you must justify the opinion that gays deserve all the same privileges as heterosexuals, or otherwise admit they are different, unequal, and do not deserve the same privileges.

Actually, I don't need to justify anything. To use your own words:

Our society is operated on a democracy. Right or wrong, that's the way things are. Our laws and regulations are the consequence of that democracy, and that is justification in and of itself.

Similarly, gay marriage in the US is legal. Right or wrong, that's the way things are, and that is justification in and of itself.

[Tom Bishop]

I am not asking how democracy works, nor did I suggest that the minority be allowed to rule the majority. All I asked is whether you consider majority rule, as it applies to spending other people's money, to be fair. If the answer is "yes", as it seems to be, then we have reached an impasse.

Yes, it is fair. We all have a say. If you don't like the government spending your money to support one lifestyle over another, and if you don't like the government telling you how to live your life, you are welcome to start or join a political group around those ideals.

You have it all wrong. The majority dictates certain things, but cannot inhibit certain freedoms. The Bill of Rights preserves basic human rights. There are certain inalienable rights the majority cannot touch.

There is nothing about homosexuals having the right to marry or receiving compensation for their activities in the Bill of Rights.

In fact, the 10th amendment of the Constitution even specifically states that any limits or rights not mentioned in the Constitution or Bill of Rights is to be decided by the States. The topic of marriage is certainly not mentioned in either document, and so it is arguably unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to dictate anything about gay marriage to the States.

I'm not sure how any of this is relevant. Whether it is a federal or state matter has no bearing on your original question as to why same-sex marriage should be legal, nor does it in any way detract from my question as to why the majority should be allowed to dictate how minorities live their lives and spend their money. As I understand it, all of the states of the USA are democracies themselves, so the level at which that mechanism operates is hardly pertinent.

It is pertinent because you are whining about the majority dictating the lives of the minority. The Bill of Rights ensures certain fundamental freedoms are upheld, regardless of the opinions of the wants of the majority.

If the right to marry whomever you please was truly an inalienable right, it should be in there. But such laws granting true equality to all fetishes and desires are unworkable. Such a broad right would allow incest, child marriages, bestiality, and society must set its limits somewhere.

No, that isn't the matter at hand. The question you asked was:

Why should gay marriage be legal?

My answer to which is:

Because the state has no business regulating people's personal lives one way or another.

And your answer was rebuffed with examples of where the government does have business regulating our personal lives.

Certain things are seen as detrimental to society. Drugs, for example, at first glance may only seem detrimental to the individual, and one is tempted to say that it is their own business for anyone who wants to live as a druggie. But as a whole the problem of drugs fosters violence, addiction, job loss, family issues, and is all around bad for society. Are you to argue that the government should not attempt to control drugs in society?

But even on the topic of gay marriage, the topic is moot. The States have already tolerated gay unions for many years. They called it Civil Unions. It allowed gays to celebrate their love and get a piece of paper in recognition. Under a Civil Union their love is celebrated and acts as an officious document which unites two people.

Civil Unions did not come with the financial benefits of a heterosexual marriage, but that was the best the State could offer. No one was preventing gays from being together. Gay love was recognized. But then gays started demanding the full title of marriage, will all of the rights and privileges thereof.

So yes, the homosexuals are absolutely demanding money for being homosexuals, and are not merely seeking a recognition of their love. It is purely a power play. Since we were already giving homosexuals recognition, celebrating their love, and all of those happy things, the question is why do you believe that the government is trying to "regulate lifestyles" on this subject?

We then danced around in circles for a while, with you dismissing every answer I provided and then asking the question again with some slight variation on the wording. Now we have the question you just claimed to be the one posed all along, which is asking about a case most people would not attempt to defend.

Since you seem to have lost track of the conversation somewhere along the line, let me remind you that I agreed with your point that providing marriage benefits to same-sex couples is unfair, but only to the extent that it is also unfair for mixed-sex couples. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is even more unfair than spending other people's money, so for as long as that unfair policy exists, it should be applied to same-sex couples as well.

Your argument that none of it is fair and no one should get any benefits is simply outside of the scope of discussion. That is not the reality. The reality is that the state already recognized gay unions, but now the gays want money for it.

Your answer that all government benefits should be abolished, and democracy as a whole is unfair, is like answering the question of how the US should respond to an attack on the Naval base Perl Harbor with an argument for how we should all live in peace and harmony and why we should abolish our military completely. That is an argument outside of scope, outside of reality, and does not provide suitable resolution to the matter at hand.