When that permit is for creating something that is a mockery of the basis of human society, how can it be justified?
Tax breaks are not the basis for human society. Perhaps you are referring to the RELIGIOUS rite of marriage, which is the basis of human society, which has little to nothing in common with civil marriages or civil unions
Then explain exactly how it is GOOD for society.
It is good for society in the same way that letting people drive blue cars is good for society. Freedom = good, unless it can be proven to be bad.
True - no-fault divorce has done a massive amount of damage to our society, and is directly responsible (in my opinion) for opening the door for “gay rights” activists to even bring this issue forth as a question. However, the current battleground is over the very definition of marriage as a union of two complimentary sexes. Once that is won, maybe we can look at reining in the view of marriage as a temporary arrangement to be entered into as a convenience.
According to the Church, a Catholic MUST vote against same-sex marriage in every election (if possible). According to the Church, this is a matter of faith.
A Catholic is NOT required to vote against allowing no-fault divorce in every election.
Therefore, according to your logic, once gay-marriage stops becoming a hot topic, Catholics will no longer be required to vote against it. This means that the current political climate of our nation changes God’s rules for us as humans, which is highly doubtful. So either
A) The Church is wrong in not requiring Catholics to vote against no-fault divorce in every election, or
B) The Church is wrong in requiring Catholics to vote against same-sex marriage in every election
The examples I cited aren’t “extra taxes”, these are cases where a benefit is offered to a particular set of people based on their behavior. Is it fair that one who doesn’t engage in the behavior in question is denied the benefit? Of course.
Therefore, any heterosexual couple which does not have children should not get the benefits of marriage.
For civil rights? Of course they deserved it - race has no bearing on behavior, and is not something that can be controlled. For gay couples? Of course they don’t. It’s their free choice to enter into a homosexual relationship - nobody is forcing them to do so.
You are comparing apples and oranges.
A fairer comparison would be to say that it’s someone’s free choice to enter into an interracial relationship, and that no one is forcing them to do so.
The difference is that married couples - as a class - are capable of producing children. Same-sex couples - however they choose to define their relationship - are not, and never can be. The pipeline benefit is in place to encourage people to move to Alaska so that there can be more people to support the industries there. Individual support of the pipeline doesn’t matter - the benefit is for ALL Alaskan residents.
Correction: FERTILE heterosexual couples, as a class, are capable of producing children. Sterile couples are not, and never will be.
Your argument hinges on how you define a “class”. If, instead, we defined the class as “sterile heterosexual couples”, then the benefit rules would be consistent.
We could also define the class as “any two humans”, and simply note that both sterile heterosexual couples and homosexual couples are small portions of that class that can’t have children, but should still deserve the same benefits.
The government rightly views tests or questions regarding the fertility of a given couple as excessively intrusive, and so gives all married couples the benefit of the doubt because of their potential to produce children. When a couple has a child, their benefits increase through further tax breaks.
So all we need to do is say that asking people what their gender is is an infringement on their privacy, and the same rule would apply to homosexual couples. If an exceptionally unattractive woman with facial hair and a manly build walks up to get married to a man, I think it would be incredibly rude to ask what her gender is. Therefore, we should not ask what peoples gender is before they get married. It makes just as much sense as asking about their fertility prospects.
Same-sex couples, no matter how “nice” or “loving” they might be as persons, are always and under all circumstances biologically incapable of producing children.
So are sterile couples.
Here’s a question for those who support same-sex “marriage”: Show why I, as a single heterosexual male should be denied the same tax breaks as those sought by same-sex couples. After all, I love myself, so why shouldn’t the government recognize that love I bear myself and give me a break because of it?
You are ignoring the other benefits to same-sex civil unions, like automatic inheritance rights, ability to pass on pension benefits, etc; none of which apply to individuals.
Saying something doesn’t make it true. Care to give an example?
The point does stand, though - popular opinion isn’t a reliable way to determine if something is good.