[Rama Set]

Why should gay marriage be legal?

The decision was actually that denying homosexuals a marriage was discriminatory and in violation of the 14tj amendment rights.  It was not a positive legislation for same sex marriage. Nice try though 

[Saddam Hussein]

Tom did a thing on this before.  See, gay couples can't procreate, meaning that they can't produce any eventual taxpayers, and so gay marriage must therefore remain illegal.

[xasop]

Why should gay marriage be legal?

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

[Tom Bishop]

Why should gay marriage be legal?

The decision was actually that denying homosexuals a marriage was discriminatory and in violation of the 14tj amendment rights.  It was not a positive legislation for same sex marriage. Nice try though 

Why should gay marriage be legal?

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

Over the years the courts have barred polygamists from marrying, from adopting, and even cohabitating in some states. Why is gay marriage so great that it deserves an exception in the law? Every argument in favor of gay marriage can be applied towards polygamy as well.

[xasop]

Over the years the courts have barred polygamists from marrying, from adopting, and even cohabitating in some states. Why is gay marriage so great that it deserves an exception in the law? Every argument in favor of gay marriage can be applied towards polygamy as well.

Like I said, the state has no business running people's lives for them. That applies to polygamy as well as homosexuality.

[Tom Bishop]

Like I said, the state has no business running people's lives for them. That applies to polygamy as well as homosexuality.

Gays don't simply want a piece of paper, they want all of the financial benefits and tax breaks that go with marriage. Why isn't it the state's business where the state's money should go and what it should support?

[xasop]

Gays don't simply want a piece of paper, they want all of the financial benefits and tax breaks that go with it. Why isn't it the state's business where the state's money should go and what it should support?

The state doesn't have any money. It seizes money from its subjects and then doles it back out to them again. This process implies a value judgment by the government about the citizens it purportedly serves; those who pay the most tax per dollar earned are seen as least valuable, while those who pay the least tax are seen as most valuable. This is interference in our lives just as surely as legislation regarding homosexuality is.

Why should those who don't marry be forced to subsidise those who do? Marriage is a personal choice; the state needn't be involved at all, let alone take sides. The way to resolve this problem is to abolish the government benefits associated with marriage and cut taxes for everyone.

[Rushy]

Why should gay marriage be legal?

To test whether or not the Roman empire really did fall because it was too gay.

[Tom Bishop]

Gays don't simply want a piece of paper, they want all of the financial benefits and tax breaks that go with it. Why isn't it the state's business where the state's money should go and what it should support?

The state doesn't have any money. It seizes money from its subjects and then doles it back out to them again. This process implies a value judgment by the government about the citizens it purportedly serves; those who pay the most tax per dollar earned are seen as least valuable, while those who pay the least tax are seen as most valuable. This is interference in our lives just as surely as legislation regarding homosexuality is.

Why should those who don't marry be forced to subsidise those who do? Marriage is a personal choice; the state needn't be involved at all, let alone take sides. The way to resolve this problem is to abolish the government benefits associated with marriage and cut taxes for everyone.

Regardless of your views that taxes should be abolished or changed, that is not the current situation. The current situation is that homosexuals are demanding money for being homosexual.

Marriage between and man and a woman is the foundation of a stable union, of a stable family, and creates tax payers and consumers. It makes sense that a state would support the stability of that union with tax breaks and other benefits. It directly affects the prosperity of society.

What does not make sense is forcing the state to support gay marriage, which does not create life, does not benefit society as much, and which has been considered a mental illness for much of history. Homosexuality is certainly not "normal," and assuredly, a homosexual union does not bring as much benefit to society as a heterosexual union.

Why does homosexual marriage deserve equal benefits without providing equal benefit to society? That is not fairness. That is the complete opposite of fairness. Homosexuals do not contribute as much to society as heterosexuals, and so do not deserve as much. What they are asking for is literally a hand out for being homosexual, not "equal treatment". They are not equals.

[xasop]

Regardless of your views that taxes should be abolished or changed, that is not the current situation. The current situation is that homosexuals are demanding money for being homosexual.

No, the current situation is that the government is already unfairly distributing wealth from non-married couples to married couples. The metrics used to qualify as a married couple are irrelevant; it's unfair to expect taxpayers to support the institution of marriage if they choose not to partake in it, regardless of whether those they are subsidising are heterosexual or homosexual. This issue is separate from and unrelated to the issue of same-sex marriage, but while this unfair practice exists, it should be extended equally to gay and straight couples alike.

Marriage between and man and a woman is the foundation of a stable union, of a stable family, and creates tax payers and consumers. It makes sense that a state would support the stability of that union with tax breaks and other benefits. It directly affects the prosperity of society.

A state does not exist to enforce prosperity. A state exists to protect the rights of individuals and organisations, thus enabling them to prosper in a free market. There is no justification for a state deciding which lifestyle is best for society on behalf of the populace.

What does not make sense is forcing the state to support gay marriage, which does not create life, does not benefit society as much, and which has been considered a mental illness for much of history. Homosexuality is certainly not "normal," and assuredly, a homosexual union does not bring as much benefit to society as a heterosexual union.

Indeed, the state should not support it. It is none of the state's business how consenting adults choose to live their lives.

Why does homosexual marriage deserve equal benefits without providing equal benefit to society? That is not fairness.

Correct. The whole point of my previous post was to point out the unfairness of providing benefits to married couples. I'm glad we agree.

[juner]

Tom, your premise does not hold up. There are more heterosexual married couples who cannot have kids than there are gay couples in the U.S. From your argument, these heterosexual couples are also not contributing and shouldn't be allowed to marry and benefit from it.

[Rama Set]

He knows it doesn't hold up. He just knows it's not cool to be blatantly homophobic so he tries for utlitarian discrimination.

[Tom Bishop]

No, the current situation is that the government is already unfairly distributing wealth from non-married couples to married couples. The metrics used to qualify as a married couple are irrelevant; it's unfair to expect taxpayers to support the institution of marriage if they choose not to partake in it, regardless of whether those they are subsidising are heterosexual or homosexual. This issue is separate from and unrelated to the issue of same-sex marriage, but while this unfair practice exists, it should be extended equally to gay and straight couples alike.

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.

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.

A state does not exist to enforce prosperity. A state exists to protect the rights of individuals and organisations, thus enabling them to prosper in a free market. There is no justification for a state deciding which lifestyle is best for society on behalf of the populace.

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 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.

Indeed, the state should not support it. It is none of the state's business how consenting adults choose to live their lives.

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.

[Tom Bishop]

Tom, your premise does not hold up. There are more heterosexual married couples who cannot have kids than there are gay couples in the U.S. From your argument, these heterosexual couples are also not contributing and shouldn't be allowed to marry and benefit from it.

The purpose of hunting is to kill and/or capture an animal. If you carry weapons into the wilderness, stalk prey, take shots at them, etc., but you never bag an animal, you are still engaging in hunting.

Shooting bullets into cardboard, on the other hand, is a completely different game with different outcomes.

It is easy to see why hunting might have one set of rules and regulations, or even given its own government sponsored benefits, and why target practice might have its own rules and no benefits. It would be ridiculous, no doubt, for people playing target practice to demand the same benefits that hunters get.

[Rama Set]

@Tom-The purpose of marriage is not children, the purpose of sex is children. That should be the lynch pin of your argument. Marriage is no longer a stable arrangement so there is not much point in rewarding it. Instead, if you are going to be brutally utilitarian you reward sexual unions that produce children or adopt with the largest portion of the bonus coking when the child gets its first job or professional certification.

All this talk of marriage is for kids and economically beneficial is totally beside the point and your stance becomes even less relevant when you accept that the government has a role to play in guiding people's lives.

The other thing I find really confusing is that no where in your analysis is there room for quality of life. Acceptance by a larger society is generally beneficial to a person's well-being and should be encouraged, indeed it is somewhat entrenched in the American Constitution.

While I am at it: homosexuality is totally natural and in fact is present in the behavior of many animal species that are studied.

[juner]

Tom, your premise does not hold up. There are more heterosexual married couples who cannot have kids than there are gay couples in the U.S. From your argument, these heterosexual couples are also not contributing and shouldn't be allowed to marry and benefit from it.

The purpose of hunting is to kill and/or capture an animal. If you carry weapons into the wilderness, stalk prey, take shots at them, etc., but you never bag an animal, you are still engaging in hunting.

Shooting bullets into cardboard, on the other hand, is a completely different game with different outcomes.

It is easy to see why hunting might have one set of rules and regulations, or even given its own government sponsored benefits, and why target practice might have its own rules and no benefits. It would be ridiculous, no doubt, for people playing target practice to demand the same benefits that hunters get.

Tom, that is a false equivalency at best, and nonsensical at worst. The analogy doesn't hold up at all. Using the same silly thought process, infertile heterosexual couples would be more akin to hunters knowing they were shooting with blanks, but still going out anyway. Does that make sense? No, of course not, because the entire analogy doesn't make sense.

[Ghost Spaghetti]

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.

Nope.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/169640/sex-marriage-support-reaches-new-high.aspx

[Tom Bishop]

@Tom-The purpose of marriage is not children, the purpose of sex is children. That should be the lynch pin of your argument. Marriage is no longer a stable arrangement so there is not much point in rewarding it. Instead, if you are going to be brutally utilitarian you reward sexual unions that produce children or adopt with the largest portion of the bonus coking when the child gets its first job or professional certification.

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.

All this talk of marriage is for kids and economically beneficial is totally beside the point and your stance becomes even less relevant when you accept that the government has a role to play in guiding people's lives.

The other thing I find really confusing is that no where in your analysis is there room for quality of life. Acceptance by a larger society is generally beneficial to a person's well-being and should be encouraged, indeed it is somewhat entrenched in the American Constitution.

What you are asking for is a handout to homosexuals. If I were a state I would see no reason for rewarding homosexuals for their anti-prosperous activities. If they want to help society out in some other way, such as getting into farming, then sure, the state will reward them with farming subsidies.

The mere fact that a man may fall in love with another man is not a justification that they should receive financial benefits. Homosexuals need to provide benefit for the system in order to get something out of it.

While I am at it: homosexuality is totally natural and in fact is present in the behavior of many animal species that are studied.

Murder, rape, and cannibalism is also natural among many species.

[Tom Bishop]

Tom, your premise does not hold up. There are more heterosexual married couples who cannot have kids than there are gay couples in the U.S. From your argument, these heterosexual couples are also not contributing and shouldn't be allowed to marry and benefit from it.

The purpose of hunting is to kill and/or capture an animal. If you carry weapons into the wilderness, stalk prey, take shots at them, etc., but you never bag an animal, you are still engaging in hunting.

Shooting bullets into cardboard, on the other hand, is a completely different game with different outcomes.

It is easy to see why hunting might have one set of rules and regulations, or even given its own government sponsored benefits, and why target practice might have its own rules and no benefits. It would be ridiculous, no doubt, for people playing target practice to demand the same benefits that hunters get.

Tom, that is a false equivalency at best, and nonsensical at worst. The analogy doesn't hold up at all. Using the same silly thought process, infertile heterosexual couples would be more akin to hunters knowing they were shooting with blanks, but still going out anyway. Does that make sense? No, of course not, because the entire analogy doesn't make sense.

When you get caught hunting illegally, try telling the park ranger that your gun was shooting blanks. He isn't going to care. You were still engaging in hunting and you're still going to jail.

The state simply doesn't have the resources to determine who is shooting blanks or who has lousy ammunition. The laws and potential benefits or penalties are designed for the activity of hunting, regardless if you are doing it right or not.

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.

Nope.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/169640/sex-marriage-support-reaches-new-high.aspx

I don't see a state by state comparison. We are not a nation state. We are a nation of autonomous states with their own cultures and laws. What is popular in one state can be unpopular in another. Try comparing California Vs. Louisiana.

[garygreen]

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?