Why Are So Many People Debating About Gay Marriages? You've All Got It All Wrong!

reply to post by Garfee


When I use the word State, I don't mean just the government but society as a whole. Your freedom to come on the internet and post about topics such as government, politics and social issues is protected by the society in which you live. There are parts of the world (different societies) where these freedoms are not granted.

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by Garfee

 

When I use the word State, I don't mean just the government but society as a whole. Your freedom to come on the internet and post about topics such as government, politics and social issues is protected by the society in which you live. There are parts of the world (different societies) where these freedoms are not granted.

I beg your mother #ing pardon? Are you saying that I am free to live my life only because society has mercifully decided not to lynch me?

Let them try. In fact, you're welcome to have a crack at it yourself and see how far you get.

Edit: I'd like to apologise to Dark Ghost and members reading his thread for this lack of self-control. I'm only human. Or am I?

reply to post by Garfee


Is there any reason in particular why your post is so hostile? I get the feeling you took what I said the wrong way...

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

The State has an interest in sanctioning Heterosexual relationships; they have the potential to provide future citizens for the State without the need of a third party. (The exception being those that are baron and those not wishing to have children, but these are a minority. Most marriages produce offspring. And the incentive for starting a family unit is there.)

Homosexual relationships provide no potential benefit for the State (the exception being the adoption of orphaned children, I suppose) and therefore should not be sanctioned. This is not because homosexuals are any less deserving of rights and freedoms, it is because their union does not carry the same potential benefit for the state as does a heterosexual union.

Gays are a minority of the population as well, so the fact that their marriage does not produce offspring shouldn't hurt anything, any more than barren couples or couples who choose not to procreate.

There are many homosexual couples who are willing to take orphaned children who have severe mental/physical disabilities. These are the children that no one else will take. This alone should provide incentive to allow homosexual marriages. It gets these children off the burden of the State.

Having marriage licenses for homosexuals also provides revenue for the State. The states that have legalized gay marriage have reported an increase in revenue. Another incentive.

Your argument is actually hogwash. There is a conservative (mostly religious) movement in America that is very loud about trying to prevent the legalization of gay marriage. This is the primary reason why most states are afraid to legalize gay marriage. They don't want to mess with the "religious right". It has nothing to do with what is advantageous for the State.

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by Garfee

 

Is there any reason in particular your post is so hostile? I get the feeling you took what I said completely the wrong way than it was meant to be taken...

Yes, because your thought pattern tells you that there is something wrong with me. If you think that my freedom to live peacefully and as I wish should be impinged because religious idiots are pissed they can no longer have it all their way, or fools who think our very society will fall apart and no one will have babies because we will all turn homo then mate have you got some serious learning experiences to go through.

Originally posted by kaylaluv
Gays are a minority of the population as well, so the fact that their marriage does not produce offspring shouldn't hurt anything, any more than barren couples or couples who choose not to procreate.

But their union is not providing any benefits to the state, so why should the state provide any benefits to the union? (By benefits I mean things like tax breaks and incentives. I do NOT mean visitation rights or spousal wills - I support these things for gay couples, which they should receive in Civil Unions).

There are many homosexual couples who are willing to take orphaned children who have severe mental/physical disabilities. These are the children that no one else will take. This alone should provide incentive to allow homosexual marriages. It gets these children off the burden of the State.

If homosexual couples can prove they are raising a child, then I support the idea that they receive benefits from the State. But would you say the majority of homosexual unions do raise children?

Having marriage licenses for homosexuals also provides revenue for the State. The states that have legalized gay marriage have reported an increase in revenue. Another incentive.

I concede that this is a valid point, despite the fact that the benefits that are to be paid to this new couple are at the expense of taxpayers.

Your argument is actually hogwash. There is a conservative (mostly religious) movement in America that is very loud about trying to prevent the legalization of gay marriage. This is the primary reason why most states are afraid to legalize gay marriage. They don't want to mess with the "religious right". It has nothing to do with what is advantageous for the State.

If you disagree with my argument that is fine, but to call it "hogwash" is uncalled for.

I realise a large contingent of the anti-Gay Marriage group is religiously motivated (especially in America, I live in Australia btw). My objections, however, stem from a secular point of view as I have tried to demonstrate in this thread.

reply to post by Dark Ghost


You know what, don't worry about it.

I'd just like to say thank you to you and all the other heterosexuals for allowing me, just a lowly homosexual, to exist in your world.

Originally posted by Dark Ghost

Originally posted by kaylaluv
Gays are a minority of the population as well, so the fact that their marriage does not produce offspring shouldn't hurt anything, any more than barren couples or couples who choose not to procreate.

But their union is not providing any benefits to the state, so why should the state provide any benefits to the union? (By benefits I mean things like tax breaks and incentives. I do NOT mean visitation rights or spousal wills - I support these things for gay couples, which they should receive in Civil Unions).

Why should the state provide any benefits to the union of barren couples or couples who choose not to procreate? Gays pay taxes like everyone else. They are consumers, so they help the economy. They work at jobs to provide products and services. They deserve the same benefits as heterosexuals who don't produce children.

Having marriage licenses for homosexuals also provides revenue for the State. The states that have legalized gay marriage have reported an increase in revenue. Another incentive.

I concede that this is a valid point, despite the fact that the benefits that are to be paid to this new couple are at the expense of taxpayers.

Don't forget, gays pay taxes too.

Originally posted by kaylaluv
Why should the state provide any benefits to the union of barren couples or couples who choose not to procreate? Gays pay taxes like everyone else. They are consumers, so they help the economy. They work at jobs to provide products and services. They deserve the same benefits as heterosexuals who don't produce children.

I am actually of the opinion that the State should only pay benefits to couples (whatever their sexual orientations) that can prove they are raising children.

I know gay people also pay taxes and are contributing members to society. That is not the issue. The issue is what benefit does the union between two gay people (Gay Marriage) bring to the State.

Originally posted by Dark Ghost

I am actually of the opinion that the State should only pay benefits to couples (whatever their sexual orientations) that can prove they are raising children.

I know gay people also pay taxes and are contributing members to society. That is not the issue. The issue is what benefit does the union between two gay people (Gay Marriage) bring to the State.

Why should the state pay ANYONE for the decision to have children? Having children is a personal choice, and part of responsible parenting is accepting the associated costs. I'd go further and say that the only people that should receive any sort of compensation should be those that adopt domestically and help ease the burden placed on government by failed parents. Based solely on procreational factors, this burden is placed on government almost exclusively by heterosexuals. If anything, gay couples would help to alleviate this problem.

Originally posted by Dark Ghost

Originally posted by kaylaluv
Why should the state provide any benefits to the union of barren couples or couples who choose not to procreate? Gays pay taxes like everyone else. They are consumers, so they help the economy. They work at jobs to provide products and services. They deserve the same benefits as heterosexuals who don't produce children.

I am actually of the opinion that the State should only pay benefits to couples (whatever their sexual orientations) that can prove they are raising children.

I know gay people also pay taxes and are contributing members to society. That is not the issue. The issue is what benefit does the union between two gay people (Gay Marriage) bring to the State.

I think you are from a different planet, so I don't have much more to say to you, other than - it is not so simple as you claim. "Raising" children is not the same as "biologically reproducing". Elderly couples who have already raised children, but whose children are grown up will be left out. What about a gay man who had children in a heterosexual marriage, but then decides to live his true life with his male partner? What about the problem of over-population? There comes a point when more and more children is not always better.

I hate to hear what your thoughts are on citizens who have become permanently disabled, and no longer contribute anything to the "State". God help them.

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
But their union is not providing any benefits to the state, so why should the state provide any benefits to the union? (By benefits I mean things like tax breaks and incentives. I do NOT mean visitation rights or spousal wills - I support these things for gay couples, which they should receive in Civil Unions).

This is not the Dark Ages when population had to be replenished after every plague.

Marriage and family is a stabilizing force in any community. Marriage and family is Marriage and family - - - no matter the genders.

Funny how when Heteros use in-vitrol - - that's a real family. But when Gays use in-vitrol - - its not a real family.

Bull Pucky. There is zero difference.

Originally posted by Dark Ghost

If homosexual couples can prove they are raising a child, then I support the idea that they receive benefits from the State. But would you say the majority of homosexual unions do raise children?

Does this apply to hetero couples as well?

Again - - this is not the dark ages when quantity of people were needed for labor - - and populations needed to be replenished after every plague.

Society evolves.

The young no longer feel it is their responsibility to take care of the old. If you don't plan ahead for yourself - - your screwed.

Statistically the more intelligent and educated a couple is - - the less kids they have - - or none at all.

We are splitting into 2 groups. The intelligent/educated - - - and the lower class "slave" group.

My guess is most Homosexuals will be in the first group. The intelligent/educated. Seems to me - - Homosexuals are "made" for the direction society is going.

Over populating Heteros - - - better take notice.

In nature there is male (+) and female (-). There are male and female mammals, birds, reptiles and insects. Charged particles work the same way. In magnetism, negative repels negative and positive repels positive. The male (+) prongs on your laptop, fit into a female (-) outlet. Flowers contain both male and female parts in order to reproduce. If you can not see that this universe was built by design, I can't help you.

I have tried very hard to remain civil and courteous to everyone in this thread. And I understand that each of you have your own opinions, and I respect that. But what I am saying isn't rocket science. This universe and all of it's parts were contrieved for balance. And now you will say, "how does granting homosexual marriage disturb the balance?" And I will say, "because it goes against the laws of nature."

Everyone is saying that the government or the state or whoever should not be involved with marriage. This was NOT an issue before homosexuals wanted to marry. It is only an issue now because marriage, is by definition, a union between a male and a female, and the state has thus far upheld that definition.

People think that the government has it's nose in places that it doesn't belong, and maybe it does. But I can guarantee you that if the government simply stepped aside and said "you can now do as you please", this country would crumble faster than a house made of cards. What would happen to all of the welfare recipients, the people on disability, the programs for underpriviledged children? People only seem to have a problem with government when they aren't getting THEIR way.

This is a great "story". And as you see the KIDS stepped up. This is their generation and their friends.

Student removed from contest for pro-gay remark

Fullerton Union High School student says he hopes gay marriage will be legal and is removed from Mr. Fullerton competition.

By EUGENE W. FIELDS / THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER FULLERTON

Students at Fullerton Union High School are protesting the action of an administrator who removed a classmate of theirs from a campus competition for his pro-gay comment.

He was removed from the school's Mr. Fullerton competition Tuesday night for answering a question of where he saw himself in 10 years.

The student said he hoped to find the love of his life, marry him and hoped gay marriage would be legal.

After the answer, an assistant principal took the student from the Plummer Auditorium stage and disqualified him from the competition.

Giokaris said the administrator apologized privately to the student and publicly over the school's public-address system Wednesday morning. www.ocregister.com...

If Nature was the only thing that mattered. We'd still be living in grass huts.

There is no base of reality in that position.

Gays are not sterile. Nothing wrong with their plumbing (reproductive organs). Gays have propagated the human species the same way everyone else has.

BUT - - it is not Their "Normal" - - it is not Their "Natural".

Place yourself in their position. By Society Law - - YOU - - have to perform a sex act with a same gender person.

How do you feel about that?

If you refuse to see yourself in that position - - - then you are not even trying to understand. And don't care.

Pad-locked minds do nothing to progress society.

reply to post by Annee


And you have asked ME to leave YOU alone. And so I have done that. My post was to no one in particuliar if you will notice.

Good Day.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Its a legal issue these days as disputes are no longer solved by the "honour system".

Marriage sometimes give better clarity. It also has financial benefits sometimes. Also it gives both parents equal rights with children.

I'm no lawyer though lol, so I'm just assuming.

States are limited in their marriage law rights.

When a Federal Law supersedes - - such as the Civil Rights Act - - all states rights pertaining to - become null and void.

Yes - - the states will still be able to make certain laws about age - waiting times - blood tests - - etc.

But they will not be allowed to discriminate by race or gender.

Because a Federal Marriage Act will be past - - in the near future.

Originally posted by kykweer
reply to post by ModernAcademia

 

Its a legal issue these days as disputes are no longer solved by the "honour system".

Marriage sometimes give better clarity. It also has financial benefits sometimes. Also it gives both parents equal rights with children.

I'm no lawyer though lol, so I'm just assuming.

Marriage is a contract. It has always been a contract. Its always been about rights and property. It used to be family making arrangements with family.

But when you grow into a complex society - - you need Legal Contracts for protection. And that is what a Legal Government Marriage License is all about. Plus they added some extras for various reasons.

The premise of the OP's discussion has nothing to do with Gay marriage. Except you put Gay in the title and you get more hits.

So now its turned into a Gay Marriage Rights debate - - - instead of what it should be. Government controlling marriage.