my solution to the gay marriage argument

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so you agree that marriage laws should have limits.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
Sadly, your opinion on where those lines are to be drawn goes against a vast majority of the rest of the public.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thankfully, we have a Constitution and a plethora of caselaw that makes discrimination on the basis of gender illegal. Marriage laws are discriminatory on the basis of gender plain and simple. They are not discriminatory on the basis of sexuality.

Gay Woman can marry Gay Man 1 (no discrimination on basis of sexuality)
Gay Man 2 cannot marry Gay Man 1 (no discrimination on basis of sexuality --- the only reason Gay Man 2 cannot marry Gay Man 1 whereas Gay Woman can is because of his gender.)

[ QUOTE ]
I do appreciate the vague "Well, there are legitimate state interests in limiting the marriage benefits to two people." comment though. You did a fantastic job supporting that opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Legitimate state interests in limiting marriage to two people: Cost, efficiency, practicality.

Note that the "cost" element isn't greater overall costs (as any marriage has a "cost" to the state") it is greater cost than a non-multiple marriage. Gay marriages don't have a greater cost than straight marriages.

[ QUOTE ]
This might not be true for women, but I wholeheartedly believe that if men were legally allowed to marry other men, you'd see bachelors snatching up $12 marriage licenses left and right and entering into legal contracts with other bachelor friends for the tax benefits.

[/ QUOTE ]

A) I don't think that would happen, but that's largely irrelevant because you do and neither of us have anything but our best guess on that matter
B) So what? Straight people get married all the time for reasons other than true love and we don't outlaw that.

[ QUOTE ]
If I'm single and my best friend is a government employee, what's stopping me from paying my $12 for our marriage license so I can get put on to his healthcare plan?


[/ QUOTE ]

If your best friend is a woman, what's stopping you from doing that now? How are the situations any different except in one case it happens to be two people of the same gender?

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
What an utterly arbitrary assessment of legitimate state interest.

I want the state to insure the success of the next generation, a task uniquely suited to hetrosexuals. I can think of few interests greater. Your argument is ever so much easier if you ignore this crucial difference (or alibi it) and it's clear many on your side insist on that.


[/ QUOTE ]

Its rather arbitrary of you to assume only heterosexuals can insure the success of the next generation.

Second- does everyone agree the role of the state is to promote procreation? It happens pretty well without government intervention.

Can we just skip around all your little games and just call a spade a spade. You're biased against gays and don't want to mind your own business. You actively want to deny them benefits because of your bigotry. Then we can move on.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I want the state to insure the success of the next generation, a task uniquely suited to hetrosexuals. I can think of few interests greater.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if there is gay marriage, you believe that people will stop having kids.

[/ QUOTE ]

In 5000 years of civilized human history there exists no analogous precedent from which to judge. It's clear no one knows how it all shakes out nor exactly what stakes we're playing for. Except you, of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Yes I see your point, now! In 5000 years of human history, the govt always provided financial benefits to married heterosexuals. And good thing too or we might not be here today!

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I want the state to insure the success of the next generation, a task uniquely suited to hetrosexuals. I can think of few interests greater.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if there is gay marriage, you believe that people will stop having kids. Riiiiiiigggggghhhhhhhttttttttttttt... And if everyone in the entire world didn't want kids, what does it matter to you? Have your own kids and they'll be the only ones left. Your family wins it all.

[/ QUOTE ]

My wife and I put off having kids for a long time. We were worried that gays might marry and how it would effect our marriage. Thank God for good people like inthedark protecting my marriage!! I can only marvel at how my marriage to my wife would immediately have shattered if two guys are allowed to marry.

Inthedark is a real spiritual warrior. Second only to:
[image]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/35/65677415_81e93d1257.jpg?v=0[/image]

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I'm single and my best friend is a government employee, what's stopping me from paying my $12 for our marriage license so I can get put on to his healthcare plan?


[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing. I support you. Marry any dude you want. Meanwhile I suspect most men will hold out to find a woman they want to marry and gay guys will wait to find partners they want to spend their life with. But if you want to live with some dude to share his benefits good for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this is where our true disconnect lies.

I don't believe the government should be inflated even further so as to suck more money out of me. You do.

You = liberal = high taxes and a nanny state
Me = conservative = low taxes and a gov't that leaves me the [censored] alone


Edit: If you want to set up your gay lover to be your PoA and put him on your private health insurance plan and every other thing under the sun, I have NO problem with that. When you start proposing bigger government just because you feel left out, THAT is where I start having a problem.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I'm single and my best friend is a government employee, what's stopping me from paying my $12 for our marriage license so I can get put on to his healthcare plan?


[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing. I support you. Marry any dude you want. Meanwhile I suspect most men will hold out to find a woman they want to marry and gay guys will wait to find partners they want to spend their life with. But if you want to live with some dude to share his benefits good for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this is where our true disconnect lies.

I don't believe the government should be inflated even further so as to suck more money out of me. You do.

You = liberal = high taxes and a nanny state
Me = conservative = low taxes and a gov't that leaves me the [censored] alone


Edit: If you want to set up your gay lover to be your PoA and put him on your private health insurance plan and every other thing under the sun, I have NO problem with that. When you start proposing bigger government just because you feel left out, THAT is where I start having a problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the real disagreement is one person believes that IF the government is going to give a benefit to married individuals they shouldn't discriminate. The other believes that IF the government is going to give a benefit to married individuals they should discriminate.

[ QUOTE ]
Me = conservative = low taxes and a gov't that leaves me the [censored] alone

[/ QUOTE ]

You = wanting to discriminate = leave me alone with MY government benefit

[vulturesrow]

Ok I cant be quiet any longer.

Re: State interest: The legitimate state interest here is the continuance of a stable population base in the United States. As such, the union of a heterosexual union is the most likely way this is going to happen. No its not the only way so please dont throw that strawman out there.

Re: Marriage

The state isnt creating marriage. You can get married in a church that will do and you can call yourself married all you want, you can tell everyone that your same sex partner is your husband. What the state is doing is a recognizing a particular form of marriage that it believes is most beneficial to state interests. As such, it provides a variety of benefits to that institution. There are people going ZOMG its discrimination, but the government already discriminates in a number of ways, one of which springs to mind is certain programs that benefit minority business owners.

Also, the family is the basic social unit of our society and the government has interest in promoting the form of that we have discovered to be the most effective over thousands of years.

Re: Subsidizing marriage:

Its funny how there are so many posters who are quick to point out the economic effects of subsidies when the discussion is about other things, but as soon as we start takling about marriage, its suddenly as if the causal link doesnt exist anymore. Dont be willfully blind in this regard. Sure many people will still have children.

Anyhow, not sure if I will respond to any replies as I've dicussed this ad nauseum on this forum before and I'm not too keen on rehashing it.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I'm single and my best friend is a government employee, what's stopping me from paying my $12 for our marriage license so I can get put on to his healthcare plan?


[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing. I support you. Marry any dude you want. Meanwhile I suspect most men will hold out to find a woman they want to marry and gay guys will wait to find partners they want to spend their life with. But if you want to live with some dude to share his benefits good for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this is where our true disconnect lies.

I don't believe the government should be inflated even further so as to suck more money out of me. You do.

You = liberal = high taxes and a nanny state
Me = conservative = low taxes and a gov't that leaves me the [censored] alone


Edit: If you want to set up your gay lover to be your PoA and put him on your private health insurance plan and every other thing under the sun, I have NO problem with that. When you start proposing bigger government just because you feel left out, THAT is where I start having a problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

So presumably you would support very low or zero taxes for both straight and gay couples and no wasteful benefit or tax credit nonsense.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I'm single and my best friend is a government employee, what's stopping me from paying my $12 for our marriage license so I can get put on to his healthcare plan?


[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing. I support you. Marry any dude you want. Meanwhile I suspect most men will hold out to find a woman they want to marry and gay guys will wait to find partners they want to spend their life with. But if you want to live with some dude to share his benefits good for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this is where our true disconnect lies.

I don't believe the government should be inflated even further so as to suck more money out of me. You do.

You = liberal = high taxes and a nanny state
Me = conservative = low taxes and a gov't that leaves me the [censored] alone

[/ QUOTE ]

Think much?

If so, then you should be railing against the govt using tax law to manipulate behavior and allocate selective benefits -- this is what a nanny state does when it doesn't leave people the [censored] alone.

But like many conservatives, you are all for using the govt to impose beliefs and selective benefits and not leave people alone when it is doing something that jives with your personal value system.

Hypocrisy ftw.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, I want to know the people's view on polygamy.

What's yours?

[/ QUOTE ]

Polygamists should have to choose 1 spouse to whom "marriage" benefits should pass.

There are legitimate state interests in limiting the scope of marriage to two individuals. There are not legitimate state interests in limiting the scope of marriage to people of different genders (as discriminating on the basis of gender is not a legitimate state interest.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I just want to point out that the state has all kinds of interests that it should not be allowed to enforce on the people. "State interest" is just not a justification for anything.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

"State interest" is just not a justification for everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I was too sweeping. Of course, my definition of "state interest" pretty much only covers defensive warfare....

Even so, "state interest" isn't a justification in and of itself for anything, precisely because it can't be considered a justification for all things the state wants to do.

natedogg