|
|
#121
11-20-2007, 10:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: my solution to the gay marriage argument
[ QUOTE ]
Why don't the polygamists have the same rights as gays? Who are we to deny those 3, 4, 5, or 30 people the right to a legal marriage and all of the benefits? [/ QUOTE ] 
|
|
#122
11-21-2007, 03:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: my solution to the gay marriage argument
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Why don't the polygamists have the same rights as gays? Who are we to deny those 3, 4, 5, or 30 people the right to a legal marriage and all of the benefits? [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] Why are you quoting your own question again? People have agreed that granting govt benefits to some while denying same benefits to others (i.e., polygamists) is wrong. You are the one who is advocating such a policy when it comes to gays. You aren't making a case for one discrimination just by giving an example of another discrimination. But if that's the best you got and have to try it a second time, then I guess its safe to say you concede the argument.
|
|
#124
11-21-2007, 11:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: my solution to the gay marriage argument
[ QUOTE ]
No, I want to know the people's view on polygamy. What's yours? [/ QUOTE ] I don't particularly care for it. But I don't want to impose my values on others at the point of a gun. If minors are being taken advantage of, that is a different story and I might get a gun to help them if needed.
|
|
#125
11-21-2007, 11:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: my solution to the gay marriage argument
[ 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.)
|
|
#126
11-21-2007, 12:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: my solution to the gay marriage argument
[ 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 ] Ok, so you agree that marriage laws should have limits. Sadly, your opinion on where those lines are to be drawn goes against a vast majority of the rest of the public. 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. 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. Now, you have to consider what that would do to private benefit packages offered by employers. 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? You'll say it's impractical... and I'll say you're just blind to the possibilities. 1) Split $12 marriage license cost with buddy 2) Reap tax/healthcare plan/etc etc etc marriage benefits 3) ?????? 4) PROFIT 5) ?????? 6) Find someone you actually want to marry 7) Get $200 divorce from buddy from Legalzoom.com 8) Get married properly 9) ??????? 10) CONTINUE TO PROFIT
|
|
#127
11-21-2007, 12:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: my solution to the gay marriage argument
[ 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 ] Ok, so you agree that marriage laws should have limits. Sadly, your opinion on where those lines are to be drawn goes against a vast majority of the rest of the public. 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. 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. Now, you have to consider what that would do to private benefit packages offered by employers. 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? You'll say it's impractical... and I say you're just blind to the possibilities. 1) Split $12 marriage license cost with buddy 2) Reap tax/healthcare plan/etc etc etc marriage benefits 3) ?????? 4) PROFIT 5) ?????? 6) Find someone you actually want to marry 7) Get $200 divorce from buddy from Legalzoom.com 8) Get married properly 9) ??????? 10) CONTINUE TO PROFIT [/ QUOTE ] So you admit there are all kinds of financial reasons to marry. And you use this as a defense for denying these benefits to adults who clearly have a "marriage-like" relationship because in your hypothetical world these benefits may then be given to other single people who are also discriminated against by marriage benefits. This is a silly argument. The problem is obviously with the benefits which are bestowed in a discriminating manner. Your logic is about the same as saying: Blacks shouldn't be allowed to vote, because if they were allowed to, then you might have Asians pretending to be black and voting as well.
|
|
#128
11-21-2007, 12:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: my solution to the gay marriage argument
[ 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 ] 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.
|
|
#129
11-21-2007, 12:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: my solution to the gay marriage argument
[ QUOTE ]
I want the state to insure the success of the next generation, a task uniquely suited to hetrosexuals. [/ QUOTE ] You think the reason that people have kids is because of the gubmint benefits of legalized marriage?
|
|
#130
11-21-2007, 12:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: my solution to the gay marriage argument
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I want the state to insure the success of the next generation, a task uniquely suited to hetrosexuals. [/ QUOTE ] You think the reason that people have kids is because of the gubmint benefits of legalized marriage? [/ QUOTE ] Yeah we need to subsidise f**king otherwise noone will do it!
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
