For Those Opposing Gay Marriage: Answer This One Question: How Does It Affect You?

[razz]

The answer of course is that it doesn't, but I'd love to hear your thoughts nonetheless. To me, this issue is saddening, it's sort of like debating whether or not women should vote...it's a pathetic waste of time and money (LDS anyone?).

The worst part about this entire scenario, for me at least is the preaching of the "separate but equal" status. Have we, as a country not learned from the Jim Crow laws? Why do we keep repeating the same mistakes of our ancestors? Do the bigots of today not realize that in 50 years they'll be looked at the same way we, as citizens of 2009 look at the supporters of white supremacy?

Also, the argument of "it's changing the definition" is quite pathetic...no? The definition of marriage originated as a way of securing property rights and lines of succession...the "one man-one woman" concept comes directly from the Bible, and since the United States is not a theocracy why is that definition brought into play?

If you want to live in a theocracy (with "ironically" some people who are fervently against homosexuality) then perhaps Saudi Arabia or Iran would be some good destination points...

 

[RiverDad]

Re: For Those Opposing Gay Marriage: Answer This One Question: How Does It Effect You

The answer of course is that it doesn't, but I'd love to hear your thoughts nonetheless.

The fact that you're so committed to your bias and can't see the answer doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Look, marriage evolved around heterosexual relationships. When homosexual relationships are included, then "the one size fits all" concept of marriage must start accommodating the unique interests of homosexual couples. This concept is applicable across a number of situations. Perhaps you'd have an easier time understanding if, oh I don't know, how about track and field. Male runners are running on a specific track with specific dimensions, but now wheelchair athletes and blind athletes want to compete with them. How could the traditions and form and practice of track and field change by including these new athletes who simply want to partake of the same activity? Well, for one, the width of each lane will change, and so too might the high friction track surface, for while it is designed to prevent the distance runner from slipping, most of the time actual foot contact only comprises a small percentage of the distance traveled but for the wheelchair athlete, their wheels will have continuous contact with the surface and the high friction surface will pose an unfair handicap for them. In order to accommodate them the width of the track and the surface characteristics have to be changed. Now the normal runners are slipping more often and they lose the sense of immediacy from having their competitor next to them in a narrow lane because the lane is now wider.

When homosexuals try to cram their own unique lifestyle into an institution designed for heterosexual partnerships, the fit isn't going to be perfect and they'll soon start wanting to tweak the laws on marriage to make it just a little more accommodating to the peculiarities that they bring to their partnership. Those tweaks are going to affect heterosexual partnerships.

It would be discriminatory for a divorce court judge to treat heterosexual partners differently with respect to alimony than if the couple were homosexual.

The state shouldn't have any interest in fostering homosexual marriage for the state really doesn't, and shouldn't, give a damn about the celebration of personal love. Marriage serves a purpose in society in that it fosters support for creating a stable environment within which to raise children and it models desired behavior, though not perfectly, far better than the alternative lifestyles that compete with the institution of marriage.

Lastly, the benefits that the state confers on married couples must be subsidized by unmarried people. When two dudes who love each other want to get married, there is no compelling reason why they deserve any subsidy or preference from the state when a father and his daughter, living together in a non-sexual relationship, cannot claim the same benefits, or why two best friends can't claim the same benefits.

Have we, as a country not learned from the Jim Crow laws? Why do we keep repeating the same mistakes of our ancestors?

1.) The comparison of homosexual marriage restrictions to interracial marriage restrictions is built on a definitional fallacy and thus is an invalid comparison.
2.) From point #1, it follows that we're not repeating the same mistakes.

If you want to live in a theocracy (with "ironically" some people who are fervently against homosexuality) then perhaps Saudi Arabia or Iran would be some good destination points...

Alternatively, if you want to experience homosexual marriage, then you can go live in the culture that gave historical rise to this long lived cultural practice. My memory slips and I can't quite remember where homosexual marriage has been practiced for these many thousands of years, but I'm sure that you'll remind me. Regardless, if this is your argument, then you should probably go live there and be happy.

 

[Arch Enemy]

Re: For Those Opposing Gay Marriage: Answer This One Question: How Does It Effect You

Marriage serves a purpose in society in that it fosters support for creating a stable environment within which to raise children and it models desired behavior, though not perfectly, far better than the alternative lifestyles that compete with the institution of marriage.

You might need to explain this a bit to me. Are you saying that the alternative options for an environment for child raising cannot compete with the concepts of the institution of marriage? That a married man and a woman promote the best results for child-raising and it is the institution that deserves credit for this?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Re: For Those Opposing Gay Marriage: Answer This One Question: How Does It Effect You

The fact that you're so committed to your bias and can't see the answer doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Look, marriage evolved around heterosexual relationships. When homosexual relationships are included, then "the one size fits all" concept of marriage must start accommodating the unique interests of homosexual couples. This concept is applicable across a number of situations. Perhaps you'd have an easier time understanding if, oh I don't know, how about track and field. Male runners are running on a specific track with specific dimensions, but now wheelchair athletes and blind athletes want to compete with them. How could the traditions and form and practice of track and field change by including these new athletes who simply want to partake of the same activity? Well, for one, the width of each lane will change, and so too might the high friction track surface, for while it is designed to prevent the distance runner from slipping, most of the time actual foot contact only comprises a small percentage of the distance traveled but for the wheelchair athlete, their wheels will have continuous contact with the surface and the high friction surface will pose an unfair handicap for them. In order to accommodate them the width of the track and the surface characteristics have to be changed. Now the normal runners are slipping more often and they lose the sense of immediacy from having their competitor next to them in a narrow lane because the lane is now wider.

When homosexuals try to cram their own unique lifestyle into an institution designed for heterosexual partnerships, the fit isn't going to be perfect and they'll soon start wanting to tweak the laws on marriage to make it just a little more accommodating to the peculiarities that they bring to their partnership. Those tweaks are going to affect heterosexual partnerships.

It would be discriminatory for a divorce court judge to treat heterosexual partners differently with respect to alimony than if the couple were homosexual.

The state shouldn't have any interest in fostering homosexual marriage for the state really doesn't, and shouldn't, give a damn about the celebration of personal love. Marriage serves a purpose in society in that it fosters support for creating a stable environment within which to raise children and it models desired behavior, though not perfectly, far better than the alternative lifestyles that compete with the institution of marriage.

Lastly, the benefits that the state confers on married couples must be subsidized by unmarried people. When two dudes who love each other want to get married, there is no compelling reason why they deserve any subsidy or preference from the state when a father and his daughter, living together in a non-sexual relationship, cannot claim the same benefits, or why two best friends can't claim the same benefits.

Nothing here answers the question. Firstly, your analogy doesn't work. There is no difference between a heterosexual and a homosexual relationship, with the exception of the sex of the partners involved. No extra accommodations are necessary, as they would be in you wheelchair example.

Secondly, you are correct. The state's vested interest in marriage is to provide a stable environment for children to be raised. And since all evidence shows that children raised by homosexual parents function as well as those raised by heterosexual parents, the state has a vested interest in homosexual marriage. So, this point of your is debunked.

1.) The comparison of homosexual marriage restrictions to interracial marriage restrictions is built on a definitional fallacy and thus is an invalid comparison.
2.) From point #1, it follows that we're not repeating the same mistakes.

I've never been one to adhere to the interracial argument. The homosexual marriage position is strong enough to stand on it's own.

Alternatively, if you want to experience homosexual marriage, then you can go live in the culture that gave historical rise to this long lived cultural practice. My memory slips and I can't quite remember where homosexual marriage has been practiced for these many thousands of years, but I'm sure that you'll remind me. Regardless, if this is your argument, then you should probably go live there and be happy.

Neither your comments or his make any sense nor apply. All they are, are straw men.

 

[RiverDad]

Re: For Those Opposing Gay Marriage: Answer This One Question: How Does It Effect You

That a married man and a woman promote the best results for child-raising and it is the institution that deserves credit for this?

Best results? Absolutely. That's not saying that a living together couple are going to ruin their children, but, on average, marriages provide a better environment for raising children.

The role of government is to discriminate in favor of desired policy outcomes. Government couldn't function if we withdraw from it the power of discrimination.

The role of the government isn't to validate the feelings of the living together couple so that they feel "equal" to the married couple. If the living together couple wants the benefits associated with marriage, then they should get married.

If homosexual partners want some benefits for raising children, then they should partake of civil unions which are tailored to best fit the unique conditions of homosexual partnerships.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Re: For Those Opposing Gay Marriage: Answer This One Question: How Does It Effect You

You might need to explain this a bit to me. Are you saying that the alternative options for an environment for child raising cannot compete with the concepts of the institution of marriage? That a married man and a woman promote the best results for child-raising and it is the institution that deserves credit for this?

You and I both know that's not true, Arch, but I'd love to see his answer to your question. Then I will post "Proof that Homosexual Parents and Heterosexual Parents Yield Equally Functional Children, Post #3". :mrgreen:

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Re: For Those Opposing Gay Marriage: Answer This One Question: How Does It Effect You

Best results? Absolutely. That's not saying that a living together couple are going to ruin their children, but, on average, marriages provide a better environment for raising children.

Post evidence that heterosexual couples provide the best outcome for raising children.

The role of government is to discriminate in favor of desired policy outcomes. Government couldn't function if we withdraw from it the power of discrimination.

Post evidence that heterosexual couples provide the best outcome for raising children.

The role of the government isn't to validate the feelings of the living together couple so that they feel "equal" to the married couple. If the living together couple wants the benefits associated with marriage, then they should get married.

Actually, this is precisely why the government should sanction homosexual marriages. Since children of gay parents function as well, creating governmental stability is logical.

If homosexual partners want some benefits for raising children, then they should partake of civil unions which are tailored to best fit the unique conditions of homosexual partnerships.

My position is that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. It was a church instituted concept, anyhow. All unions, hetero or homo should be civil unions. Only the church can sanction "marriage". All civil unions come with identical governmental benefits, regardless of the sexual orientation of the partners.

 

[Arch Enemy]

Re: For Those Opposing Gay Marriage: Answer This One Question: How Does It Effect You

Best results? Absolutely. That's not saying that a living together couple are going to ruin their children, but, on average, marriages provide a better environment for raising children.

The role of government is to discriminate in favor of desired policy outcomes. Government couldn't function if we withdraw from it the power of discrimination.

The role of the government isn't to validate the feelings of the living together couple so that they feel "equal" to the married couple. If the living together couple wants the benefits associated with marriage, then they should get married.

If homosexual partners want some benefits for raising children, then they should partake of civil unions which are tailored to best fit the unique conditions of homosexual partnerships.

You are wrong.
The best results are when the parents, regardless of what sexual organ they favor, are the best parents. A true Dickens' "it depends on the heart" ordeal. I am not scarred and I grew up having parents separated-- they're both good parents. Tell me, what blemishes to my pscyhe am I supposed to be undergoing? I would like to know your diagnosis of me being raised in two different homes.

 

[RightinNYC]

Re: For Those Opposing Gay Marriage: Answer This One Question: How Does It Effect You

To me, this issue is saddening, it's sort of like debating whether or not women should vote...it's a pathetic waste of time and money

That's a worthwhile topic.

 

[Arch Enemy]

Re: For Those Opposing Gay Marriage: Answer This One Question: How Does It Effect You

That's a worthwhile topic.

HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH

womens suffrage = mens suffering.

oh man. I kid I kid.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Re: For Those Opposing Gay Marriage: Answer This One Question: How Does It Effect You

To me, this issue is saddening, it's sort of like debating whether or not women should vote...it's a pathetic waste of time and money

That's a worthwhile topic.

Wait, women can vote?!!! WHY WASN'T I INFORMED?!!!

 

[ARealConservative]

Re: For Those Opposing Gay Marriage: Answer This One Question: How Does It Effect You

It increases the cost of a failed social program - social security.

It increases costs for employer sponsored health care and makes it easier to abuse such a system.

 

[RiverDad]

Re: For Those Opposing Gay Marriage: Answer This One Question: How Does It Effect You

Nothing here answers the question. Firstly, your analogy doesn't work. There is no difference between a heterosexual and a homosexual relationship, with the exception of the sex of the partners involved. No extra accommodations are necessary, as they would be in you wheelchair example.

There are plenty of unique characteristics associated with homosexual partnerships. When domestic violence occurs, which partner is sequestered from the home? In heterosexual marriages the man is usually sequestered. With two homosexual dudes looking like they've had a violent lover's spat, which one do the police remove? Once it becomes institutionalized that police can't play favorites, then it's discriminatory for police to play favorites when responding to a heterosexual marital dispute. Either remove both the man and the wife, randomly choose one and make sure that the randomness can survive statistical discovery. The fact that it is men who generally commit violence against their wives in no way tells us anything about a particular man. To statistically profile men and treat them a certain way because they're married to women but then treat them differently when they're partnered in a homosexual relationship is not going to stand.

Secondly, you are correct. The state's vested interest in marriage is to provide a stable environment for children to be raised. And since all evidence shows that children raised by homosexual parents function as well as those raised by heterosexual parents, the state has a vested interest in homosexual marriage. So, this point of your is debunked.

Not quite. First off, most of these studies are done by researchers who are advocating a position of equivalence. Study design is critical. Such studies would be less prone to challenge if the researchers, both pro and con, collaborated on the study design, execution and analysis. Secondly, replication is a problem. Thirdly, the subjective valuation of what degree of variation is important or not important makes these studies less valuable. Fourthly, the limited time scope of the studies don't serve to answer the purported question that prompted the study.

On this last point, to give you a parallel example, many studies look at the intervention effect of Head Start and they claim remarkable results over the course of the intervention and for short periods after the intervention ends. These studies are used by policy makers to promote the implementation of Head Start programs as solutions to problems of scholastic and life-outcome inequalities. The problem is that the time series of the studies is too short and when we follow up on the children who participated in the studies we find that the Head Start effect dissipate over time.

The point is that we haven't followed the life paths of the children who are, or were, being raised in homosexual parent households for a long enough period of time to determine the effects that result.

Your quick rush to issue the judgment of "debunked" isn't warranted.

 

[razz]

Re: For Those Opposing Gay Marriage: Answer This One Question: How Does It Effect You

The fact that you're so committed to your bias and can't see the answer doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

I am biased against bigots, yes, that is correct...I'm also biased towards modern-day nazi's and the Ku Klux Klan.

Look, marriage evolved around heterosexual relationships. When homosexual relationships are included, then "the one size fits all" concept of marriage must start accommodating the unique interests of homosexual couples.

It's just as much of a "unique interest" as Rosa Parks wanting to sit in the front of the bus....in other words, no one is asking for special rights...just rights that everyone else has

This concept is applicable across a number of situations. Perhaps you'd have an easier time understanding if, oh I don't know, how about track and field. Male runners are running on a specific track with specific dimensions, but now wheelchair athletes and blind athletes want to compete with them. How could the traditions and form and practice of track and field change by including these new athletes who simply want to partake of the same activity? Well, for one, the width of each lane will change, and so too might the high friction track surface, for while it is designed to prevent the distance runner from slipping, most of the time actual foot contact only comprises a small percentage of the distance traveled but for the wheelchair athlete, their wheels will have continuous contact with the surface and the high friction surface will pose an unfair handicap for them. In order to accommodate them the width of the track and the surface characteristics have to be changed. Now the normal runners are slipping more often and they lose the sense of immediacy from having their competitor next to them in a narrow lane because the lane is now wider.

Terrible analogy...because no one is making an inference to accommodate and include homosexuals in a wedding with heterosexuals....

You could fix the analogy by assuming that the healthy athletes want to ban those with wheelchairs from racing all together, proclaiming "track is defined as a sport where people run with their legs, not move on wheels...therefore because I'm a bigot I'd like to ban you from racing all together"

When homosexuals try to cram their own unique lifestyle into an institution designed for heterosexual partnerships, the fit isn't going to be perfect and they'll soon start wanting to tweak the laws on marriage to make it just a little more accommodating to the peculiarities that they bring to their partnership. Those tweaks are going to affect heterosexual partnerships.

Really, cram their unique lifestyle...on whom? What you're not understanding is no one is fighting for special rights, just rights in general...until people start wanting EXTRA rights that you don't have, then you'll have a right to complain.

Marriage serves a purpose in society in that it fosters support for creating a stable environment within which to raise children and it models desired behavior, though not perfectly, far better than the alternative lifestyles that compete with the institution of marriage.

Nevermind the fact that you just stated an opinion and not a legitimate argument, the same statement could be made in reference to homosexual parents.

Alternatively, if you want to experience homosexual marriage, then you can go live in the culture that gave historical rise to this long lived cultural practice. My memory slips and I can't quite remember where homosexual marriage has been practiced for these many thousands of years, but I'm sure that you'll remind me. Regardless, if this is your argument, then you should probably go live there and be happy.

I'm sure they told MLK and Malcolm X to move to Africa when they wanted rights for African-Americans, but unfortunately for you this is the United States of America...where telling people to "beat it" only works under totalitarian regimes.

It increases the cost of a failed social program - social security.

It increases costs for employer sponsored health care and makes it easier to abuse such a system.

What are you talking about?

And even if it did increase costs on anything whatsoever, we're talking about people's rights. You know...helping children and seniors with medical-related problems is also costly, but we do it because we care about people's rights...and as we should

 

[RightinNYC]

Re: For Those Opposing Gay Marriage: Answer This One Question: How Does It Effect You

It increases costs for employer sponsored health care and makes it easier to abuse such a system.

I've actually seen some things that make me think this is a good point. I know two heterosexual pairs of individuals who have no intention of getting married but have gotten "domestic partnership'd" so that the other person can get health insurance/housing from the other partner's work. Of course, they're just taking advantage of loopholes that their employers chose to leave, but it's still amusing.

 

[razz]

Re: For Those Opposing Gay Marriage: Answer This One Question: How Does It Effect You

^ You know your post about taking advantage of loopholes just reminded me of something, no one has a problem with Britney Spears getting married to a man she met for 18 hours in Vegas yet will spend millions and millions of dollars on preventing two good-hearted and kind individuals from marrying eachother, on the basis that they're gay..

 

[ARealConservative]

Re: For Those Opposing Gay Marriage: Answer This One Question: How Does It Effect You

What are you talking about?

And even if it did increase costs on anything whatsoever, we're talking about people's rights. You know...helping children and seniors with medical-related problems is also costly, but we do it because we care about people's rights...and as we should

I don't actually oppose gay marriage but I provided a non biased look at the economic effects it would have on me...and all of us as was asked in the opening.

If I had my way, marriage would be a thing of the past. The only purpose of marriage for governments is to extend benefits to a privileged class of people but government should only see individuals, not groups of individuals.

 

[RiverDad]

Re: For Those Opposing Gay Marriage: Answer This One Question: How Does It Effect You

And even if it did increase costs on anything whatsoever, we're talking about people's rights. You know...helping children and seniors with medical-related problems is also costly, but we do it because we care about people's rights...and as we should

Now you're shifting the goal posts. Your post was designed to ask "how does it effect you?" You got an answer, but now you're saying that even though "gay marriage" does affect married people, when you claimed it wouldn't, that this effect is immaterial because "we're talking about people's rights." Um no, we're not talking about people's rights.

Health care benefits are not a civil right. Marriage by it's nature is a discriminatory institution and government is also exercising its power of discrimination. For government to confer onto you the benefits of marriage the government will have to impose greater financial hardship on non-married people. Why should single people and those engaged in non-traditional relationships have to subsidize benefits for homosexual people wanting to partner with a loved one?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Re: For Those Opposing Gay Marriage: Answer This One Question: How Does It Effect You

There are plenty of unique characteristics associated with homosexual partnerships. When domestic violence occurs, which partner is sequestered from the home? In heterosexual marriages the man is usually sequestered. With two homosexual dudes looking like they've had a violent lover's spat, which one do the police remove? Once it becomes institutionalized that police can't play favorites, then it's discriminatory for police to play favorites when responding to a heterosexual marital dispute. Either remove both the man and the wife, randomly choose one and make sure that the randomness can survive statistical discovery. The fact that it is men who generally commit violence against their wives in no way tells us anything about a particular man. To statistically profile men and treat them a certain way because they're married to women but then treat them differently when they're partnered in a homosexual relationship is not going to stand.

This still makes no case for your position and has nothing to do with this discussion. Police will sequester the person that a) has committed the domestic violence, b) has most likely committed the domestic violence, or c) is most able to leave. Sex is irrelevant. If dealing with a homosexual relationship, it just means that police will need to not be, as you say, discriminatory. Not a problem if they follow the steps.

Not quite. First off, most of these studies are done by researchers who are advocating a position of equivalence. Study design is critical. Such studies would be less prone to challenge if the researchers, both pro and con, collaborated on the study design, execution and analysis.

Wrong. Study design is key, and the studies that have been produced have been shown to be valid and credible, both because they have been shown to not have serious design flaws, the results are reproducible, and they have been peer reviewed. These are the tenets of reliability, and the studies have passed the muster.

Secondly, replication is a problem.

Plenty of replication. It's only a problem for your side of the argument.

Thirdly, the subjective valuation of what degree of variation is important or not important makes these studies less valuable.

Qualities such as social functioning, academic functioning, psychological functioning, sexual functioning, acting out, and other issues are covered. This is pretty comprehensive. All of these are studied using standardized statistical analysis. Since they have been peer reviewed, the statistical variation has been deemed appropriate and acceptable.

Fourthly, the limited time scope of the studies don't serve to answer the purported question that prompted the study.

Wrong again. Though many studies are time-limited, there are some that are far more longitudinal.

On this last point, to give you a parallel example, many studies look at the intervention effect of Head Start and they claim remarkable results over the course of the intervention and for short periods after the intervention ends. These studies are used by policy makers to promote the implementation of Head Start programs as solutions to problems of scholastic and life-outcome inequalities. The problem is that the time series of the studies is too short and when we follow up on the children who participated in the studies we find that the Head Start effect dissipate over time.

The point is that we haven't followed the life paths of the children who are, or were, being raised in homosexual parent households for a long enough period of time to determine the effects that result.

Inaccurate. Though fewer, there are some studies that have tracked the outcomes of people having been raised by homosexual parents into their 30's.

Your quick rush to issue the judgment of "debunked" isn't warranted.

Sure it is. You still haven't offered any evidence supporting your position.

 

[razz]

Re: For Those Opposing Gay Marriage: Answer This One Question: How Does It Effect You

Now you're shifting the goal posts. Your post was designed to ask "how does it effect you?" You got an answer, but now you're saying that even though "gay marriage" does affect married people, when you claimed it wouldn't, that this effect is immaterial because "we're talking about people's rights." Um no, we're not talking about people's rights

So assuming something effects you financially at the expense of a taking away rights from people, you wouldn't budge or change your position? Wow...that's the entire argument against gay marriage? Perhaps I should use such arguments towards those who are morbidly obese, maybe banning them from getting married would also save us money, after all we are a capitalistic country!

Marriage by it's nature is a discriminatory institution and government is also exercising its power of discrimination.

I'm sorry, by it's nature? Do you know the origins of marriage and the purpose it served? Perhaps I should make a new thread and educated the masses.

For government to confer onto you the benefits of marriage the government will have to impose greater financial hardship on non-married people. Why should single people and those engaged in non-traditional relationships have to subsidize benefits for homosexual people wanting to partner with a loved one?

So why don't we ban marriage all together? Otherwise, every law made that discriminates against a particular group (be it blacks, latinos, etc) should not receive protest on the basis that it's "too expensive to support everyone and effects group XYZ negatively"

 

[ChristianMiller]

Re: For Those Opposing Gay Marriage: Answer This One Question: How Does It Effect You

GRACEFUL SOLUTION: GET GOVERNMENTS OUT OF THE MARRIAGE and CIVIL UNION BUSINESS

The gay marriage debate has, at times, degenerated into bitter disrespectful name-calling. The real issue is to determine what the law should be. What are the appropriate roles of the Federal, State and Local governments in marriage/civil unions. My contention is that when one holds to principles of the separation of church and state and fairness, then there is no benefit to society for government involvement in marriage or civil unions at all.

Once government benefits for marriage are withdrawn or made available to single people, then churches, organizations and individuals can deal with couples coming together, living together, raising families and doing what people have done forever. Couples are free to determine their relationships and characterize it with any words they choose.

The conservatives should welcome the reduction of government and getting government out of our intimate personal lives; the Christian Right should welcome that the church now has authority over the marriage of its members and rather than the government; the 100 million single people should applaud at no longer having to pay for benefits exclusively going to married people; gays will have finally have achieved true equality; the liberals and progressives should welcome the justice of the situation. Everyone should be satisfied except those who relish the fight itself.

 

[RiverDad]

Re: For Those Opposing Gay Marriage: Answer This One Question: How Does It Effect You

GRACEFUL SOLUTION: GET GOVERNMENTS OUT OF THE MARRIAGE and CIVIL UNION.

The problem is that the State actually has an interest in supporting marriage. Allow me to make a comparison. If there are protests against the Iraq War, or any war for that matter, is the proper solution to get government out of the business of defending the nation, or defending the nation's interests? I mean once the government no longer engages in military violence then all of the protests will evaporate, and the pro-war defenders won't have anything to defend and the anti-war protesters won't have anything to protest.

Your solution doesn't really work because you're asking the government to take no interest in an area which is crucial to the survival of the State itself.

 

[jallman]

Re: For Those Opposing Gay Marriage: Answer This One Question: How Does It Effect You

The problem is that the State actually has an interest in supporting marriage. Allow me to make a comparison. If there are protests against the Iraq War, or any war for that matter, is the proper solution to get government out of the business of defending the nation, or defending the nation's interests? I mean once the government no longer engages in military violence then all of the protests will evaporate, and the pro-war defenders won't have anything to defend and the anti-war protesters won't have anything to protest.

Your solution doesn't really work because you're asking the government to take no interest in an area which is crucial to the survival of the State itself.

Actually, I'm pretty sure if the government got out of the business of legitimizing relationships by handing out goodies for having the right kind of relationship, the country would not fall apart.

 

[ChristianMiller]

Re: For Those Opposing Gay Marriage: Answer This One Question: How Does It Effect You

RiverDad,
How do feel that government licensing of marriage is "crucial to the survival of the State itself"?

 

[RiverDad]

Re: For Those Opposing Gay Marriage: Answer This One Question: How Does It Effect You

RiverDad,
How do feel that government licensing of marriage is "crucial to the survival of the State itself"?

Marriages produce a higher number of children than do non-marriages. The life outcomes of children born within marriages are better than those born out of wedlock, on average.

A State that turns it back on policies which produce future citizens is a State heading towards diminished power and influence. A State that turns it back on policies which increase the human capital of its citizens is a State that faces a willful diminishment of power.