Should legally married same sex couples recieve federal benefits?

[CriticalThought]

Regardless of how you feel about same sex marriage, one thing is true, ins some states it is legal. While most states have banned the practice, there is half a dozen states in which same sex marriage is recognized.

That being said, the federal government established the Defense of Marriage Act during Clinton's administration which bans the federal government from recognizing same sex marriages in states, even if those states legalize same sex marriage.

A major conservative principle is state's rights. When the federal government denies federal marriage benefits to same sex couples married in states that have legalized same sex marriage, they trample on those state's rights to define marriage as they please.

Recently a federal appeals court struck down unanimously the part of DOMA which restricts the federal government from recognizing same sex marriages in states in which the practice is legal.

Gay marriage fight likely heads to high court - BostonHerald.com

This issue is now headed directly to the Supreme Court.

I am curious. If I am legally married in my state to a same sex partner, then why shouldn't I receive federal benefits?

 

[Gipper]

I'd rather see legally married hetero couples lose theirs.

 

[Daktoria]

I'd rather see legally married hetero couples lose theirs.

Why?

The rule of law is based on sophistication. If anything, parents having children out of wedlock should pay a penalty for making sophistication more difficult to maintain.

As for the OP, no. Homosexual couples can't internally have children. They shouldn't even be able to get married, and if they do, they should pay an additional fee for distorting the English language in redefining the meaning of "marriage".

 

[Ikari]

I'd rather see legally married hetero couples lose theirs.

Well that's the true way to go; but not the way which shall be followed.

 

[Ikari]

Why?

The rule of law is based on sophistication. If anything, parents having children out of wedlock should pay a penalty for making sophistication more difficult to maintain.

As for the OP, no. Homosexual couples can't internally have children. They shouldn't even be able to get married, and if they do, they should pay an additional fee for distorting the English language in redefining the meaning of "marriage".

I think you should pay an extra fee for terrorizing my brain cells.

 

[Gipper]

Say wuh...

Children are a non-factor in this. In fact, that's an entirely separate deduction/break entirely, as you don't need to be married to get a dependent credit.

Are you basing this on some sort of divine belief? I sure hope not. I'd be pissed if I went to McDonalds this Friday and they'd only sell me a Filet-o-Fish.

 

[Daktoria]

I think you should pay an extra fee for terrorizing my brain cells.

If you agree that expression and impression go hand in hand, it shouldn't be difficult to see the problem with letting homosexuals get "married".

 

[Daktoria]

Say wuh...

Children are a non-factor in this. In fact, that's an entirely separate deduction/break entirely, as you don't need to be married to get a dependent credit.

Excuse me?

The whole point of getting married is guaranteed assumption of risk in having kids.

Are you basing this on some sort of divine belief? I sure hope not. I'd be pissed if I went to McDonalds this Friday and they'd only sell me a Filet-o-Fish.

Actually the history of marriage precedes religion. It goes back to paleolithic times when paternity tests were impossible.

 

[Gipper]

Last I checked, he doesn't have an issue with homosexuals getting married. It's just one thing to perform an action out of love and commitment, and another to perform it to weenie out of a tax bracket.

 

[Gipper]

Excuse me?

The whole point of getting married is guaranteed assumption of risk in having kids.

Whoa whoa whoa...

I personally do not intend to have kids, knock on wood. Does this mean I have no business getting married?

Frankly I don't have a problem with it, but what if the girl I wanna be with insists? Chicks do that, ya know. Yeah, I might find a woman who wants to be with me 40 years without a piece of paper and a white dress, but I'm hedging that bet.

 

[Ikari]

If you agree that expression and impression go hand in hand, it shouldn't be difficult to see the problem with letting homosexuals get "married".

I believe in logical and rational arguments, which seems to put us at odds.

 

[Ikari]

Excuse me?

The whole point of getting married is guaranteed assumption of risk in having kids.

A stable family structure certainly does help with that, doesn't mean that marriage should be limited to that.

Actually the history of marriage precedes religion. It goes back to paleolithic times when paternity tests were impossible.

So? That doesn't mean we have to remain in paleolithic times. Systems evolve.

 

[Daktoria]

Last I checked, he doesn't have an issue with homosexuals getting married. It's just one thing to perform an action out of love and commitment, and another to perform it to weenie out of a tax bracket.

Last I checked, children don't consent to be born. They're entitled to dimorphic expertise from the people who create them.

 

[Daktoria]

Whoa whoa whoa...

I personally do not intend to have kids, knock on wood. Does this mean I have no business getting married?

Frankly I don't have a problem with it, but what if the girl I wanna be with insists? Chicks do that, ya know. Yeah, I might find a woman who wants to be with me 40 years without a piece of paper and a white dress, but I'm hedging that bet.

Marriage is about risk assumption. Whether you actually have kids or not doesn't matter. The point is it's insurance that potential kids will be cared for.

 

[Ikari]

Last I checked, children don't consent to be born. They're entitled to dimorphic expertise from the people who create them.

Pfft, over a million of them are killed each year before they can even live.

 

[Daktoria]

A stable family structure certainly does help with that, doesn't mean that marriage should be limited to that.

Cuckolding is coercion.

So? That doesn't mean we have to remain in paleolithic times. Systems evolve.

No. Nature evolves. Society develops.

The point of living in society is we've overcome the state of nature. There is more to cognitive experience than recklessly marching onward.

 

[Daktoria]

Pfft, over a million of them are killed each year before they can even live.

You don't see a problem with that?

Tell me, how can we appreciate the subjectivity of personhood when extinguishing its potential simply because its hostage takers go unsatisfied?

 

[Gipper]

Marriage is about risk assumption.

For men.

#1 reason I'm not married.

 

[Ikari]

Cuckolding is coercion.

It's also completely irrelevant to what I stated.

No. Nature evolves. Society develops.

The point of living in society is we've overcome the state of nature. There is more to cognitive experience than recklessly marching onward.

Evolution is change. Society certainly does evolve over time. Humans have never gotten anywhere through stagnation. It's slow death.

 

[Daktoria]

For men.

#1 reason I'm not married.

No, it doesn't have to do with men or women. It has to do with how children aren't property. They're people.

 

[Gipper]

Does Tigger have a second account that I'm not aware of?

 

[Daktoria]

It's also completely irrelevant to what I stated.

No it's not.

1) Why are people obligated to organize in villages to care for children that aren't theirs?

2) Why are children obligated to assume the risk of available role models?

Evolution is change. Society certainly does evolve over time.

Change in itself is meaningless.

Humans have never gotten anywhere through stagnation. It's slow death.

Not true. Sometimes, it pays to slow down so you think before you act and don't rush into traps.

 

[Ikari]

No it's not.

1) Why are people obligated to organize in villages to care for children that aren't theirs?

2) Why are children obligated to assume the risk of available role models?

No one is obligated to either.

Change in itself is meaningless.

Change itself is necessary

Not true. Sometimes, it pays to slow down so you think before you act and don't rush into traps.

It is true, stagnation is slow death. Look what happens when we "slow down". You get the dark ages. Know why they were called the dark ages? Cause we didn't advance anything! Humanity has never achieved anything through stagnation.

 

[Daktoria]

No one is obligated to either.

Then what's the point of homosexuals getting married?

Change itself is necessary

It is true, stagnation is slow death. Look what happens when we "slow down". You get the dark ages. Know why they were called the dark ages? Cause we didn't advance anything! Humanity has never achieved anything through stagnation.

Actually, they're called the Dark Ages because we lost the glory of Rome due to an addiction to Empire.

 

[Ikari]

Then what's the point of homosexuals getting married?

To be married, to gain access to the perks and benefits other people receive through government for marriage, to dedicate the rest of their lives to another (or until they file for divorce like half of the heterosexual marriages)

Actually, they're called the Dark Ages because we lost the glory of Rome due to an addiction to Empire.

It wasn't "losing the glory of Rome". Rome had many benefits on our evolution and our aggregation of knowledge. Loosing that stability and wealth caused us to stagnate. The Dark Ages is what stagnation looks like.