Social "equality" for gays

[Brendan]

Right now to mimic marriage as closely as we can, I think we’ve spent nearly 10,000 in legal fees to lawyers, paperwork, corporation founding, and it still doesn’t always work right.

Which is the exact same amount a heterosexual would have to pay to do the same thing to another person of the same gender.

The fact is, you have the exact same rights to marriage that any other person in the US has.

You have the right to marry a single, adult, consenting, unmarried, human person of the opposite sex.

No right is being denied to you, no additional costs are being asked of you that are not being asked of anyone else. Thus, there is no discrimination.

 

[pathia]

You have the right to marry a single, adult, consenting, unmarried, human person of the opposite sex.

My specific case isn’t good to bring up with that line because the ‘opposite sex’ to me is dependent on what doctor you ask, and they will always give it an asterisk with a footnote

 

[buffalo]

Then everyone who has to pay legal fees to get the same treatment that married people get without having to pay legal fees is not being treated fairly. It’s wrong no matter who is being discriminated against, gay or straight.

No - this is not a civil rights issue or discimination. Marriage has priveleges that the state grants incentives for.

 

[Fitswimmer]

No - this is not a civil rights issue or discimination. Marriage has priveleges that the state grants incentives for.

Well, if everyone really wants to end the fuss over marriage then the government needs to stop granting privileges to some of it’s tax paying, law abiding citizens that it does not grant to others. Take those away, and those who wish to have gay marriage enshrined into civil law lose the argument. Until that happens, courts will continue to overturn laws that deny gay people marriage.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

well, that’s not what Pathia is saying. I have no experience with trying to live in a partnership, so I really can’t speak to it. I can only rely on the experience and witness of others that the rights of some American citizens are not the same as those of other American citizens. I’ve seen some very sad things happen, I’ve heard of some very sad things happening and I’ve heard about some just plain frustrating and expensive things happening-just because they can’t call their partnership the same thing that everyone else in America calls their partnerships.

estesbob beat me to the punch in post #119.

This next bit is purely a theory and belief rooted in “natural law” - but I don’t mean it in a derogatory fashion. I assure you, we are in agreement - people should not descrimiate against gay’s who live chaste, lives and are law abiding citizens.

However, society does have a need to perpetuate itself, and incent people to have stable homes, where children can be raised, educated, etc. The normal way is for heterosexual couples to get married and the government sees the need to assign certain rights and incentives for this to happen. The government also sets up basic laws for inheritence, and at least try to break property evenly during a divorce.

 

[buffalo]

Well, if everyone really wants to end the fuss over marriage then the government needs to stop granting privileges to some of it’s tax paying, law abiding citizens that it does not grant to others. Take those away, and those who wish to have gay marriage enshrined into civil law lose the argument. Until that happens, courts will continue to overturn laws that deny gay people marriage.

Huh? There are valid reasons to give a tax incentive to someone who goes green, buys a hybrid, buys a home, invests and many other activites.

So I should be able to buy a gas guzzler and get a tax incentive? I like this plan! All I have to do is appeal to the ninth circus court.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Well, if everyone really wants to end the fuss over marriage then the government needs to stop granting privileges to some of it’s tax paying, law abiding citizens that it does not grant to others. Take those away, and those who wish to have gay marriage enshrined into civil law lose the argument. Until that happens, courts will continue to overturn laws that deny gay people marriage.

But, it can be argued that heterosexual marriage can provide a benefit for society (i.e. raising of children)

Not that this happens perfectly…

 

[Fitswimmer]

estesbob beat me to the punch in post #119.

This next bit is purely a theory and belief rooted in “natural law” - but I don’t mean it in a derogatory fashion. I assure you, we are in agreement - people should not descrimiate against gay’s who live chaste, lives and are law abiding citizens.

However, society does have a need to perpetuate itself, and incent people to have stable homes, where children can be raised, educated, etc. The normal way is for heterosexual couples to get married and the government sees the need to assign certain rights and incentives for this to happen. The government also sets up basic laws for inheritence, and at least try to break property evenly during a divorce.

I understand all of that, but the point is-as long as there is even one thing that a gay couple can take to a court and show different treatment for no other reason than because God said that their union is disordered, they’re going to continue to win cases.

The question boils down to, do we like the incentives enough to allow gay couples to continue to win those cases?

The other issue is, unless the gay person testifies that they are not living a chaste life or they are living that unchaste life out in a public place-nobody really knows that they aren’t. It would be nice if people would stay on the safe side and just not discriminate against gay people or anyone else.

 

[GratefulDad]

Well, if everyone really wants to end the fuss over marriage then the government needs to stop granting privileges to some of it’s tax paying, law abiding citizens that it does not grant to others. Take those away, and those who wish to have gay marriage enshrined into civil law lose the argument. Until that happens, courts will continue to overturn laws that deny gay people marriage.

Please do not be so terse and rude to others they are only trying to show you the truth. Your words do not need to express such harshness and anger for those trying to be helpful with this affliction. Please take time to say the Rosary and pray to the Blessed Mother for healing. If you find CAF is not to your liking perhaps their are other places that are.

 

[buffalo]

I understand all of that, but the point is-as long as there is even one thing that a gay couple can take to a court and show different treatment for no other reason than because God said that their union is disordered, they’re going to continue to win cases.

The question boils down to, do we like the incentives enough to allow gay couples to continue to win those cases?

The other issue is, unless the gay person testifies that they are not living a chaste life or they are living that unchaste life out in a public place-nobody really knows that they aren’t. It would be nice if people would stay on the safe side and just not discriminate against gay people or anyone else.

The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the definition of marriage. Under our law the legislatures do. The Courts are overstepping their bounds after the fact. Marriage was defined long before there was a Supreme Court. You mean to tell me marriage was unconstitutional since our founding?

 

[Fitswimmer]

Please do not be so terse and rude to others they are only trying to show you the truth. Your words do not need to express such harshness and anger for those trying to be helpful with this affliction. Please take time to say the Rosary and pray to the Blessed Mother for healing. If you find CAF is not to your liking perhaps their are other places that are.

Excuse me, but I have not been at all rude to anyone-not even to you.

I am not angry with anyone-not even you.

I say the Rosary frequently, thank you. I find it a wonderful devotion.

Are you the moderator of this site? If not, I do not believe you have the authority to ask anyone to leave.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

I understand all of that, but the point is-as long as there is even one thing that a gay couple can take to a court and show different treatment for no other reason than because God said that their union is disordered, they’re going to continue to win cases.

The question boils down to, do we like the incentives enough to allow gay couples to continue to win those cases?

The other issue is, unless the gay person testifies that they are not living a chaste life or they are living that unchaste life out in a public place-nobody really knows that they aren’t. It would be nice if people would stay on the safe side and just not discriminate against gay people or anyone else.

Ok, I’m probably going to be considered a troll, and I mean no disrespect, however, I do have a serious question (even though I may phrase it wrong):

What exact, measurable benefit will gay marriage provide to society as a whole? As in, with heterosexual marriage, I can point to the fact that it is meant to provide a stable envirionment for the creation and education of offsrping.

 

[hasikelee]

Ok, I’m probably going to be considered a troll, and I mean no disrespect, however, I do have a serious question (even though I may phrase it wrong):

What exact, measurable benefit will gay marriage provide to society as a whole? As in, with heterosexual marriage, I can point to the fact that it is meant to provide a stable envirionment for the creation and education of offsrping.

I guess you could point towards income. Two white, affluent males living in the same household, receiving the benefits of living together (shared expenses, shared support group and the various benefits being discussed on this thread) are typically much higher in the income bracket than, say, a nuclear family of four.

When you are voluntarily breaking away from the natural order and ignoring a biological imperative to continue an organism’s survival, you do come across some benefits. I would gather that those living in homosexual partnerships who fall into the top 10-15% income bracket probably agree with me wholeheartedly.

Of course, playing devil’s advocate, you could argue that those with such a level of income might not put a significant portion back into the economy, nor do they “share” enough with charities, but that would need smaller, more specific arguments.

 

[whatevergirl]

I guess you could point towards income. Two white, affluent males living in the same household, receiving the benefits of living together (shared expenses, shared support group and the various benefits being discussed on this thread) are typically much higher in the income bracket than, say, a nuclear family of four.

When you are voluntarily breaking away from the natural order and ignoring a biological imperative to continue an organism’s survival, you do come across some benefits. I would gather that those living in homosexual partnerships who fall into the top 10-15% income bracket probably agree with me wholeheartedly.

Of course, playing devil’s advocate, you could argue that those with such a level of income might not put a significant portion back into the economy, nor do they “share” enough with charities, but that would need smaller, more specific arguments.

I think that you bring up an interesting point–but, I have many friends who are heterosexual, married, but have no kids–and they have a lot more in savings, than many of my married friends who have kids–us included. I don’t think that homosexual men/women fall into a higher bracket because of anything other than many of them not having children, and devoting all of their attention to a career…and being able to spend money exclusively on themselves. I think that for some homosexual couples who adopt, they have a parent who stays at home, and thus the financial playing field becomes leveled if you will, but again, I don’t think it has anything to do with being homosexual…it has more to do with not being able to have children, and for many who don’t adopt…they have a lot of time to devote to climbing the corporate ladder. I see the same thing for couples who are heterosexual and have no kids, or single heterosexual men and women.

 

[Fitswimmer]

The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the definition of marriage. Under our law the legislatures do. The Courts are overstepping their bounds after the fact. Marriage was defined long before there was a Supreme Court. You mean to tell me marriage was unconstitutional since our founding?

According to the California court, marriage has been a fundamental Constitutional right all this time. Who knew?

Oddly enough, that court had been considered conservative until this decision.

I just think it’s too easy for a case to be made that the only objection to gay marriage is on religious grounds and thus any civil benefits of marriage can’t be denied for that reason. I think laws are going to continue to be overturned in courts because of that.

Like any other social issue, reasonable people can and will disagree.

 

[pathia]

Ok, I’m probably going to be considered a troll, and I mean no disrespect, however, I do have a serious question (even though I may phrase it wrong):

What exact, measurable benefit will gay marriage provide to society as a whole? As in, with heterosexual marriage, I can point to the fact that it is meant to provide a stable envirionment for the creation and education of offsrping.

It has always been my thought that marriage increases the chance of fidelity and lack of sleeping around willy nilly. This has been hurt by no-fault divorces, but when there is nothing to look forward to, nothing to expect, nothing to see as ‘we made it’ in a gay relationship the only thing that holds a couple together is raw love and passion. When you get no recognition, cannot adopt or have children naturally, there’s simply no incentive to remain together once the fire dies down, which is inevitable in any relationship. There has to be something to work forward to, something to solidify a bond, and for gays there is absolutely nothing. I suspect this has something to do with the number of relationships they have per year being higher than straights.

It’s sort of like ‘Why buy the cow when the milk is free?’. There isn’t an option of buying the cow at all for gay people, it’s illegal to buy the cow.

How does that benefit for society as a whole? I suspect it would lower STD transmissions in gay men. That would lower medical costs for everyone.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Ok, I’m probably going to be considered a troll, and I mean no disrespect, however, I do have a serious question (even though I may phrase it wrong):

What exact, measurable benefit will gay marriage provide to society as a whole? As in, with heterosexual marriage, I can point to the fact that it is meant to provide a stable envirionment for the creation and education of offsrping.

I wasn’t the one calling folks trolls. I’m actually enjoying the discussion. Having my opinions challenged helps me think.

The only benefits I’ve seen described are those to the couple themselves, not to society as a whole. I could say stable relationships, couples are more likely to buy homes, keep their jobs, pay their taxes…but they don’t need to be married to do that.

If the sole purpose and benefit of marriage is children, then nobody who either can’t or chooses not to have children should receive any incentives then. Other than children, what benefit does heterosexual marriage provide-I’m not trying to be snarky, I really can’t think of any.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

It has always been my thought that marriage increases the chance of fidelity and lack of sleeping around willy nilly. This has been hurt by no-fault divorces, but when there is nothing to look forward to, nothing to expect, nothing to see as ‘we made it’ in a gay relationship the only thing that holds a couple together is raw love and passion. When you get no recognition, cannot adopt or have children naturally, there’s simply no incentive to remain together once the fire dies down, which is inevitable in any relationship. There has to be something to work forward to, something to solidify a bond, and for gays there is absolutely nothing. I suspect this has something to do with the number of relationships they have per year being higher than straights.

It’s sort of like ‘Why buy the cow when the milk is free?’. There isn’t an option of buying the cow at all for gay people, it’s illegal to buy the cow.

However, with moden medical technology, the media and the whole “free love” generation, some of this can be said about straight people as well.

How does that benefit for society as a whole? I suspect it would lower STD transmissions in gay men. That would lower medical costs for everyone.

This may be true, but wouldn’t a bigger, younger work force acheive lower health care costs for everyone as well?

 

[pathia]

However, with moden medical technology, the media and the whole “free love” generation, some of this can be said about straight people as well.

This may be true, but wouldn’t a bigger, younger work force acheive lower health care costs for everyone as well?

That creates an exponential problem, because unless you’re someone like me the vast vast vast majority of medical costs in your lifetime is used in the very last few years of life. That means, that bigger younger workforce will eventually get old, and then you’ll need a bigger younger one again, and again, and again.

This will only work for so long, I think population controlling people are alarmists at the moment, but there will come a time when you just can’t solve the problem by having more people in each generation. Earth is a finite space. A larger younger workforce is only a temporary solution.

Look at China, there’s simply no way they could ever have a society as developed as ours, because they have too many people to support it. We’d need a few extra planets to support a china with a middle class a large a percentage of their population as ours.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

I wasn’t the one calling folks trolls. I’m actually enjoying the discussion. Having my opinions challenged helps me think.

The only benefits I’ve seen described are those to the couple themselves, not to society as a whole. I could say stable relationships, couples are more likely to buy homes, keep their jobs, pay their taxes…but they don’t need to be married to do that.

But what’s to say this cannot happen between any number of consenting adults, regardless of sexual orientation? People pair up or all the time to defray costs of living, yet are not in some sort of sexual relationship with each other. Or you can go it alone, if you can. Again, I don’t see how this infringes on anyones rights.

If the sole purpose and benefit of marriage is children, then nobody who either can’t or chooses not to have children should receive any incentives then. Other than children, what benefit does heterosexual marriage provide-I’m not trying to be snarky, I really can’t think of any.

The system in the US already does that. You cannot deduct children on your taxes if you don’t have any.

There is a reasonable assumption that heterosexual marriage can provide offspring. And even if a couple tries to thwart this, by contracepting, it still may happen.