Gay Marriage split

[_asbestosman]

That's your problem, asbman. You're thinking. You're just going to have to decide whether the cost of your thinking is worth it.

I'm thinking that Confidential Informant has been making a good case on why the government can support heterosexual marriage and not homosexual marriage (for example, the government can support special benefits for military veterans even though some of us couldn't join the army due to health concerns like eyesight).

I know that such thoughts are very hurtful to some people. I don't particularly like that it hurts them, but I need to support what I think is right.

[_Chap]

That's your problem, asbman. You're thinking. You're just going to have to decide whether the cost of your thinking is worth it.

I'm thinking that Confidential Informant has been making a good case on why the government can support heterosexual marriage and not homosexual marriage (for example, the government can support special benefits for military veterans even though some of us couldn't join the army due to health concerns like eyesight).

I know that such thoughts are very hurtful to some people. I don't particularly like that it hurts them, but I need to support what I think is right.

Some of us find that going to visit Confidential Informant and friends (and the mods who keep them from being effectively contradicted) on their native heath is bad for our stomachs.

So could you explain here and now what you see as the particularly good point in his argument?

[_asbestosman]

So could you explain here and now what you see as the particularly good point in his argument?

There are incentives the government provides to its citizens unequally to encourage beneficial behavior. The military is beneficial. Not everyone can qualify for the military and hence not all qualify for those incentives. Similarly, society benefits greatly from heterosexual marriage not only in producing children and in raising them, but also because heterosexual marriage tends to have a taming effect on men (according to stuff found by C.I.). The government has reason to provide incentives for such beneficial behavior. It is under no obligation to provide these incentives in the name of fairness. I probably could not qualify for the military given a couple of issues and therefore I am "unfairly" denied access to certain benefits provided to veterans. Overall, I think the government has the right to be unfair in this manner.

[_Chap]

So could you explain here and now what you see as the particularly good point in his argument?

There are incentives the government provides to its citizens unequally to encourage beneficial behavior. The military is beneficial. Not everyone can qualify for the military and hence not all qualify for those incentives. Similarly, society benefits greatly from heterosexual marriage not only in producing children and in raising them, but also because heterosexual marriage tends to have a taming effect on men (according to stuff found by C.I.). The government has reason to provide incentives for such beneficial behavior. It is under no obligation to provide these incentives in the name of fairness. I probably could not qualify for the military given a couple of issues and therefore I am "unfairly" denied access to certain benefits provided to veterans. Overall, I think the government has the right to be unfair in this manner.

But homosexual men wishing to marry are part of society. And they certainly benefit from being allowed to do so.

So allowing homosexual men who wish to marry to do so is benefiting society (I take it that there is no need to argue against the odd position that the government is obliged to limit its socially beneficent actions to those that benefit everybody in society equally?).

There is of course also the obvious point that the formation of stable bonds of mutual aid and support between individuals of any sexual orientation is generally beneficial to society.

[_moksha]

So fairness to Homosexuals is an apostate cause and issue?

[_The Nehor]

Homosexual marriage opens up a lot of cans of lots of worms.

Marriage even today mostly includes the presumption of monogamy. While heterosexual marriages are faring worse then ever homosexual relationships are even worse and always have been. A friend sent me a column today where a columnist insisted that gays should not feel obligated to be monogamous in marriage and not to let this concern get in the way of campaigning for gay marriage. When we get to the point that a woman can tell her friends that her husband is having sex with another woman and the response is something like, "Did he enjoy it?" or "Did you agree to it?" or "So when is the threesome?" rather then a condemnation of the man (a just condemnation I think) I'll think heterosexual marriage is far enough gone that I won't care about homosexuals having the same relationship.

Most group living arrangements for singles outside of relationships or marriage involve members of the same sex. What's to keep them from getting married for any number of legal reasons? I could have got cheap healthcare by marrying one of my college roommates. Should that be allowed? While this does happen in heterosexual relationships it doesn't happen that often....yet anyways.

Marriage is a legal status that assists with the raising of children and the protection of non-working spouse who is caring for children. Homosexual relationships don't need these protections and I consider it fiscally irresponsible to allow them tax breaks meant to help people through situations they won't go through. Yes, some married heterosexual couples can't have children or don't have children. They're in the minority though and there's no real way to discriminate between the two. Marriage has a lot to do with children. There's a reason that after a girl finds out she's pregnant marriage often follows.

These are my secular reasons for opposing gay marriage.

[_antishock8]

I'm all for homosexuals enjoying the benefits of marriage just like every other American. I'm also all for homosexuals suffering the consequences of divorces, just like most Americans. To have any other position makes one a bigot, and an anti-Constitutionalist.

[_Chap]

Marriage is a legal status that assists with the raising of children and the protection of non-working spouse who is caring for children.

So heterosexual couples who are to old to have children, or are medically unable to have children, or who do not intend to have children, or who both work should not be entitled to marry?

There are some societies, If I recall correctly, in which marriage is not allowed until the girl is pregnant. That might help ensure that Nehor's ideal of marriage is properly realized.

[_moksha]

If we wish to continue the topic of homosexual marriage, I would prefer it to be in a different thread.

Good point.

[_The Nehor]

Marriage is a legal status that assists with the raising of children and the protection of non-working spouse who is caring for children.

So heterosexual couples who are to old to have children, or are medically unable to have children, or who do not intend to have children, or who both work should not be entitled to marry?

There are some societies, If I recall correctly, in which marriage is not allowed until the girl is pregnant. That might help ensure that Nehor's ideal of marriage is properly realized.

I addressed that in my response. As a practical matter it would be a bureaucratic nightmare to classify couples based on this status. With homosexuals it's easy. If either one gets pregnant they're lesbians and someone is cheating.