Where is the conservative outrage over this expense?

#51
#51
droski said:
homosexual's don't get the mariatal estate tax exclusion, nor can they file joint taxes. it's also extremely hard to get control of your spouses health decisions. and what about hte cost issue? you get all these rights automatically because you are married. homosexuals must pay thousands in legal fees. legal marriage affords many rights that civil unions do not. arguing otherwise is silly.
Click to expand...

None of those are "rights". Not one.

If you think those privileges should be afforded to homosexual couples based on their sexual relationship then handle that matter apart from "marriage". Marriage has an implicit meaning and a widely accepted religious connotation.

Declaring a "right" to homosexual marriage from the Federal level is very much a violation of the establishment clause.
 
#52
#52
sjt18 said:
None of those are "rights". Not one.

If you think those privileges should be afforded to homosexual couples based on their sexual relationship then handle that matter apart from "marriage". Marriage has an implicit meaning and a widely accepted religious connotation.

Declaring a "right" to homosexual marriage from the Federal level is very much a violation of the establishment clause.
Click to expand...

who said anything about rights? marriage is a legal contract under US law. it has nothing to do with religion. that is why you have to get a marriage license before you are considered legally married. otherwise just having a priest call you married would be legal in the US.
 
#54
#54
This is the one issue I go back and forth on, sometimes on a daily basis.

On a personal level, I think it's wrong. I'll leave it at that.

At the governmental level, the pro civil-unions/marriage/etc. make arguments that I really cannot refute or argue with.

My main drawback that is if it is given the same status as hetero-sexual marriage, what is the next social cause that picks up steam. There really aren't that many left, and I am in much more opposition to them.
 
#56
#56
sjt18 said:
Otherwise marriage is a religious ideal and rite that creates a volitional, spiritual, committed bond between a man and woman. To impose homosexual marriage on society in this sense would be a clear violation of the establishment clause of the USC.
Click to expand...

Ludicrous. Removing laws against it would be more in line with the Constitution. The government imposes nothing on society by removing an antiquated and clearly religiously focused law. The religious gibberish is meaningless.
 
#57
#57
sjt18 said:
None of those are "rights". Not one.

If you think those privileges should be afforded to homosexual couples based on their sexual relationship then handle that matter apart from "marriage". Marriage has an implicit meaning and a widely accepted religious connotation.

Declaring a "right" to homosexual marriage from the Federal level is very much a violation of the establishment clause.
Click to expand...
Explain again why that "privilege" exists for heterosexual couples based upon a sexual relationship. Surely you don't think that silly explanation above about protection of women and children has any legal merit whatsoever.
 
#58
#58
my company offers health insurance to domestic partners. my buddy put his GF of 2 months on his insurance which pisses me off because i doubt he's the only one. obviously if we had homosexual marriage they wouldn't offer health insurance to domestic partners.
 
#60
#60
droski said:
then i suggest we not let people get married unless they have children.
Click to expand...
Non sequitur. "Normally" heterosexual couples are capable of producing offspring. With a very, very high degree of statistical consistency, homes headed by a married man and woman provide the most wholesome environment for children. They perform better in school and have fewer emotional problems. They are less likely to commit crime, be abused, become victims of crime, drop out of school, develop unhealthy sexual attitudes/behaviors, abuse drugs/alcohol, or suffer from a host of other social maladies.
and homosexuals can be women so i'm not sure i'm seeing your protection of women argument.
Click to expand...
Protecting women from being abandoned with their children... today the single greatest factor associated with poverty among children is being in a single parent household headed by the mother.

However, one study said that a lesbian woman was about 80 times more likely to be physically abused by her partner than a woman married to a man. Take it for what it is worth.
marriage may not be a right, but the fact remains that the gov't has given married people certain legal advantages and there is no valid reason to deny those to homosexuals.
Click to expand...
Yes there is. The democratic will of the people of the state in question. I do not agree with states that have legitimized homosexual unions... but I fully support the right of their legislature to do so if that's the will of the people.
religion has no place in our legal system.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. We ALL bring a value set and worldview to our political opinions. Religious worldviews and the political opinions derived from them are every bit have every bit as much of a place in the public debate as those derived from secular humanism or any other governing philosophy/worldview. NO ONE has a "neutral" worldview. We ALL approach reality with presuppositions.
 
#62
#62
tigervol9802 said:
The two main causes I have heard/read discussed more are polygamy and pedophilia with consenting teenagers.
Click to expand...

Those are two things that should be addressed as much as homosexual marriage. Why can't consenting people have a polygamous marriage, if they are paying their way? Why is a 16 year old not a consenting adult, but at 17 year old is?

Those are legitimate questions.
 
#63
#63
sjt18 said:
Non sequitur. "Normally" heterosexual couples are capable of producing offspring. With a very, very high degree of statistical consistency, homes headed by a married man and woman provide the most wholesome environment for children. They perform better in school and have fewer emotional problems. They are less likely to commit crime, be abused, become victims of crime, drop out of school, develop unhealthy sexual attitudes/behaviors, abuse drugs/alcohol, or suffer from a host of other social maladies. Protecting women from being abandoned with their children... today the single greatest factor associated with poverty among children is being in a single parent household headed by the mother.

what does any of that matter? Same arguments essentially support abolishing our welfare state too.

However, one study said that a lesbian woman was about 80 times more likely to be physically abused by her partner than a woman married to a man. Take it for what it is worth. Yes there is. The democratic will of the people of the state in question. I do not agree with states that have legitimized homosexual unions... but I fully support the right of their legislature to do so if that's the will of the people.

will of the people isn't a legal argument.

Yes it does. We ALL bring a value set and worldview to our political opinions. Religious worldviews and the political opinions derived from them are every bit have every bit as much of a place in the public debate as those derived from secular humanism or any other governing philosophy/worldview. NO ONE has a "neutral" worldview. We ALL approach reality with presuppositions.
Click to expand...
But that still doesn't mean that religion has a place in our legal system. If it did, homosexuality would still be a crime.
 
#64
#64
droski said:
the problem with polygamy is the abuse of children. teenagers aren't adults and therefore cannot make adult decisions.
Click to expand...

Couples never abuse their children? All polygamous marriages would?

Of course not. That argument is crap.
 
#65
#65
droski said:
the problem with polygamy is the abuse of children. teenagers aren't adults and therefore cannot make adult decisions.
Click to expand...

They are still a long ways off, but they are the next two movements picking up steam.

My point is there is always a next step.
 
#67
#67
sjt18 said:
Non sequitur. "Normally" heterosexual couples are capable of producing offspring. With a very, very high degree of statistical consistency, homes headed by a married man and woman provide the most wholesome environment for children. They perform better in school and have fewer emotional problems. They are less likely to commit crime, be abused, become victims of crime, drop out of school, develop unhealthy sexual attitudes/behaviors, abuse drugs/alcohol, or suffer from a host of other social maladies. Protecting women from being abandoned with their children... today the single greatest factor associated with poverty among children is being in a single parent household headed by the mother.

However, one study said that a lesbian woman was about 80 times more likely to be physically abused by her partner than a woman married to a man. Take it for what it is worth. Yes there is. The democratic will of the people of the state in question. I do not agree with states that have legitimized homosexual unions... but I fully support the right of their legislature to do so if that's the will of the people.

Yes it does. We ALL bring a value set and worldview to our political opinions. Religious worldviews and the political opinions derived from them are every bit have every bit as much of a place in the public debate as those derived from secular humanism or any other governing philosophy/worldview. NO ONE has a "neutral" worldview. We ALL approach reality with presuppositions.
Click to expand...

i know plenty of heterosexual couples who chose to not have children. i know homosexual couples that have chosen to have children. there are plenty of single women in this country. i really don't see how allowing homosexuals to marry hurts chidren any more than before. i very much doubt that homosexual women are more likely to abuse their spouses.
 
#68
#68
BigPapaVol said:
Explain again why that "privilege" exists for heterosexual couples based upon a sexual relationship.
Click to expand...
What is being demanded? Marriage or something equivalent to it is being demanded for two men. On what basis? Friendship? No. It is being demanded purely because they are having sex. No one is arguing that best buds who live together for years without having sex should be able to have these benefits or be further legitimized by the state.
Surely you don't think that silly explanation above about protection of women and children has any legal merit whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Surely you don't think that being pompous, condescending, and dismissive passes for a "reasoned" argument. Of course it has legal merit since it is by and large the popular opinion of most of the people in MOST of the states.

Our federal constitution specifically grants authority for everything not specifically granted to Congress to the states and the people.

If you don't like the will of the majoity then change it. But don't try to redefine the argument and terms so that you can impose your opinion on them.
 
#69
#69
sjt18 said:
What is being demanded? Marriage or something equivalent to it is being demanded for two men. On what basis? Friendship? No. It is being demanded purely because they are having sex. No one is arguing that best buds who live together for years without having sex should be able to have these benefits or be further legitimized by the state.

Surely you don't think that being pompous, condescending, and dismissive passes for a "reasoned" argument. Of course it has legal merit since it is by and large the popular opinion of most of the people in MOST of the states.

Our federal constitution specifically grants authority for everything not specifically granted to Congress to the states and the people.

If you don't like the will of the majoity then change it. But don't try to redefine the argument and terms so that you can impose your opinion on them.
Click to expand...

If popular opinion had legal merit, we would still have segregated schools. Try again.
 
#71
#71
IPorange said:
Couples never abuse their children? All polygamous marriages would?

Of course not. That argument is crap.
Click to expand...

i have no problem with consenting adults being in a polygamous relationship legally. unfortunetly a large % of polygamous communities seem more concerned with being pedophiles than marrying adults. but that is a non sequitor. i still have no problem in general with making polygamy legal.
 
#72
#72
tigervol9802 said:
What is the limit with freedom?

If a man thinks that is it ok to have sex with a 2 year old girl and the parent(s) of the 2 year old say it is ok, should he be free to do it?
Click to expand...

surely you arent' comparing abuse of a child to two consenting adults getting married?
 
#73
#73
tigervol9802 said:
What is the limit with freedom?

If a man thinks that is it ok to have sex with a 2 year old girl and the parent(s) of the 2 year old say it is ok, should he be free to do it?
Click to expand...

Classic straw man. It's the refuge for those without a real argument.

Obviously a 2 year old can not consent to such an activity, and it would be an infringement on the child's own freedom.


Let me play the extreme and improbable game:

What if a man and a woman adopted a child, but then it turned out the woman was actually a man with undescended testicles and a micropenis and didn't even know it(this actually happens). Should the child be taken away, since it is a homosexual couple?
 
#74
#74
droski said:
surely you arent' comparing abuse of a child to two consenting adults getting married?
Click to expand...

No.

IP said that people want freedom. My argument is that if you continually take the next step to "freedom" this is where you end up (or somewhere in the ballpark).
 
#75
#75
droski said:
i know plenty of heterosexual couples who chose to not have children.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. The state cannot presuppose what someone will do with a natural ability.
i know homosexual couples that have chosen to have children.
Click to expand...
Not by natural means with one another you don't.
there are plenty of single women in this country.
Click to expand...
What does this have to do with anything?
i really don't see how allowing homosexuals to marry hurts chidren any more than before.
Click to expand...
It goes to the reason for having marriage in the first place. Marriage was not conceived with tax benefits and such in mind. It may not hurt children. It does hurt society and injures the rights and liberties of those who object to homosexuality on religious or moral grounds. Again, this debate is more about seeking legitimacy than anything else... being told that what they are doing is "right" with the clear implication that this "rightness" will be imposed on anyone who dissents.

i very much doubt that homosexual women are more likely to abuse their spouses.
Click to expand...

Just something I read... you can doubt whatever you like. Anecdotally- it is consistent with what I have witnessed.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top