beastie wrote: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.
I'm not sure why this is causing you such angst. If you agree with CI, you support the church's position. So what's the problem?
Chap wrote: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.
C.I. is a lawyer and should understand the legal fallacy of his position. In CA, for example, the supreme court found that sexual orientation was a type of "protected class." Therefore, the gov't had to show a "compelling interest" in denying gays the fundamental right to "marry" whoever they chose. The CA supreme court found the gov't failed to meet this burden, which is why the 'separate but equal' treatment of heterosexuals and homosexuals when it came to marriage/domestic partnership under CA law was held unconsitutional. Had the court found the gov't had a lesser burden (In other words, that sexual orientation was not a protected class), then it would have been easier for the gov't to show its "right to be unfair" when it came to marriage was legal.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
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.
Non Sequitur.. Gay couples can have children either though adoption, surrogacy or previous marriages. Regardless, they should they should be afforded the same rights as any one else. It’s bigotry no matter how you slice it.
Rollo Tomasi wrote:C.I. is a lawyer and should understand the legal fallacy of his position. In CA, for example, the supreme court found that sexual orientation was a type of "protected class." Therefore, the gov't had to show a "compelling interest" in denying gays the fundamental right to "marry" whoever they chose. The CA supreme court found the gov't failed to meet this burden, which is why the 'separate but equal' treatment of heterosexuals and homosexuals when it came to marriage/domestic partnership under CA law was held unconsitutional. Had the court found the gov't had a lesser burden (In other words, that sexual orientation was not a protected class), then it would have been easier for the gov't to show its "right to be unfair" when it came to marriage was legal.
Why is sexual orientation a type of "protected class" in the first place? That strikes me as odd. Being a nerd isn't a protected class (although I would have loved special protection for it during my elementary and jr. high days).
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
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.
Non Sequitur.. Gay couples can have children either though adoption, surrogacy or previous marriages. Regardless, they should they should be afforded the same rights as any one else. It’s bigotry no matter how you slice it.
They can but how many do? A small minority. I wouldn't give welfare benefits to 100 people just because one might actually qualify it. I see this in similar terms.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Chap wrote:But homosexual men wishing to marry are part of society. And they certainly benefit from being allowed to do so.
Civilians are a part of society. And they certainly benefit from being given the incentives that military veterans receive. Doesn't mean we should give them the same benefits.
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.
No, I don't think this has been demonstrated at all. In fact, C.I. did say that so far studies indicate that men are not tamed by homosexual marriage the way they are in heterosexual marriage. Sure, what you say sounds good, but I don't think reality backs it up.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
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.
Non Sequitur.. Gay couples can have children either though adoption, surrogacy or previous marriages. Regardless, they should they should be afforded the same rights as any one else. It’s bigotry no matter how you slice it.
They can but how many do? A small minority. I wouldn't give welfare benefits to 100 people just because one might actually qualify it. I see this in similar terms.
We are talking about equal rights.. not a check.
Marriage rights granted by the state are not limited to just child rearing and custody. It’s every legal aspect of two people living and dying together.
If marriage is a positive aspect in society – then why would you want to limit something positive?
TAK wrote:We are talking about equal rights.. not a check. Marriage rights granted by the state are not limited to just child rearing and custody. It’s every legal aspect of two people living and dying together.
If marriage is a positive aspect in society – then why would you want to limit something positive?
Probably because I don't think homosexual marriage is a positive aspect of society.
Marriage is in many ways a check. Tell a couple with only one spouse working that they can't claim married on their income tax return. They'll lose money.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo