Total Posts:86|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Gay Marriage

rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2010 12:20:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
So I just can't figure out why people are against this. Especially people who are ok with homosexuality. People say it degrades marriage, but even if you believe homosexuality is wrong, how does someone else being married have any impact on the value of YOUR marriage. The only reason I think it NEEDS to be legalized is so gays can get the legal benefits of marriage. I don't think that we should change what it is called(as some people suggest) because of the principal of having to separate homosexual love from heterosexual love. There is no difference except for what genders are involved. "Love: it's that simple" -Angie D'Amico. It even happens in nature all the time so it isn't unnatural or anything. Thoughts?
wamba
Posts: 688
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2010 2:13:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/29/2010 12:20:15 PM, rogue wrote:
Thoughts?

I think the government should have no control over this and legal rights should be given to everyone regardless of marital status or sexual orientation. Marriage is mainly a religious ceremony and thus should be separated from government. There should be no legislation passed upon it either legalizing of banning homosexuals from marrying. Marriage should be left up to religious institutions to decide. Those who accept homosexuals marrying will in my opinion profit their institutions.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2010 2:22:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/29/2010 2:13:18 PM, wamba wrote:
At 12/29/2010 12:20:15 PM, rogue wrote:
Thoughts?

I think the government should have no control over this and legal rights should be given to everyone regardless of marital status or sexual orientation. Marriage is mainly a religious ceremony and thus should be separated from government. There should be no legislation passed upon it either legalizing of banning homosexuals from marrying. Marriage should be left up to religious institutions to decide. Those who accept homosexuals marrying will in my opinion profit their institutions.

Nicely and succinctly put.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2010 2:32:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/29/2010 2:13:18 PM, wamba wrote:
At 12/29/2010 12:20:15 PM, rogue wrote:
Thoughts?

I think the government should have no control over this and legal rights should be given to everyone regardless of marital status or sexual orientation. Marriage is mainly a religious ceremony and thus should be separated from government. There should be no legislation passed upon it either legalizing of banning homosexuals from marrying. Marriage should be left up to religious institutions to decide. Those who accept homosexuals marrying will in my opinion profit their institutions.:

Pretty much. The government just needs to get out of religious ceremonies altogether (See: Establishment Clause for 1st Amendment) . Their should be no pastors, imams, rabbi's, priests, etc acting as an arm of the government.

The government should only be upholding the contract of a civil union (I mean this as a secular marriage, NOT as a separate but equal thing for homosexuals) for indemnity purposes in legal cases only.

If religious people believe that God will sanctify their marriage, then let's let God be God for awhile and stop trying to impose his will on others.

If God grants free will, it makes me wonder why so many religious people don't.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2010 2:32:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/29/2010 2:13:18 PM, wamba wrote:
At 12/29/2010 12:20:15 PM, rogue wrote:
Thoughts?

I think the government should have no control over this and legal rights should be given to everyone regardless of marital status or sexual orientation. Marriage is mainly a religious ceremony and thus should be separated from government. There should be no legislation passed upon it either legalizing of banning homosexuals from marrying. Marriage should be left up to religious institutions to decide. Those who accept homosexuals marrying will in my opinion profit their institutions.

Homosexuals aren't banned from de facto marriages. They do it all the time.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2010 2:35:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
People say it degrades marriage, but even if you believe homosexuality is wrong, how does someone else being married have any impact on the value of YOUR marriage.:

It doesn't, which is why they needed to invent this fictitious "institution" of marriage. The last time I checked, the only people relevant in a marriage are.... the married ones.

Worry about your own marriage, not my gay friend's marriage.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2010 2:43:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Well marriage was introduced to the legal sphere as an incentive to increase children in the nuclear family. Most countries have adapted such a natal policy because a high rated of population growth is usually beneficial. Homosexuals were never intended to be married. The tax relief and cohabitation support was only made to support married people under the assumption that they would reproduce. It doesn't take a genius to understand that homosexuals can't reproduce so the very need of a legal homosexual marriage is pointless.

A pro natal policy is actually still useful in this day and age(for making up for the surplus dependent classes). Now, this won't concern any minarchist libertarians but what do others think? If marriage is part of a pro natal policy, is it discriminant to not give it homosexuals that right and give them a hollow marriage - the civil partnership?
'sup DDO -- july 2013
wamba
Posts: 688
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2010 2:55:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/29/2010 2:43:52 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Well marriage was introduced to the legal sphere as an incentive to increase children in the nuclear family. Most countries have adapted such a natal policy because a high rated of population growth is usually beneficial. Homosexuals were never intended to be married. The tax relief and cohabitation support was only made to support married people under the assumption that they would reproduce. It doesn't take a genius to understand that homosexuals can't reproduce so the very need of a legal homosexual marriage is pointless.

A pro natal policy is actually still useful in this day and age(for making up for the surplus dependent classes). Now, this won't concern any minarchist libertarians but what do others think? If marriage is part of a pro natal policy, is it discriminant to not give it homosexuals that right and give them a hollow marriage - the civil partnership?

With this logic we should also give higher tax breaks to the rich so the child can not only be in a nuclear family but also encourage rich children.

Furthermore we should also give even higher tax breaks to people who are both beautiful and rich to encourage beautiful and rich children.

Also we do not have enough beautiful rich black people with nuclear families so we should just allow them to pay no taxes to encourage more beautiful rich black children in a nuclear environment.

Finally we do not have enough beautiful rich black people geniuses with nuclear families so we should pay them to reproduce.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2010 3:00:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/29/2010 2:55:11 PM, wamba wrote:
At 12/29/2010 2:43:52 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Well marriage was introduced to the legal sphere as an incentive to increase children in the nuclear family. Most countries have adapted such a natal policy because a high rated of population growth is usually beneficial. Homosexuals were never intended to be married. The tax relief and cohabitation support was only made to support married people under the assumption that they would reproduce. It doesn't take a genius to understand that homosexuals can't reproduce so the very need of a legal homosexual marriage is pointless.

A pro natal policy is actually still useful in this day and age(for making up for the surplus dependent classes). Now, this won't concern any minarchist libertarians but what do others think? If marriage is part of a pro natal policy, is it discriminant to not give it homosexuals that right and give them a hollow marriage - the civil partnership?

With this logic we should also give higher tax breaks to the rich so the child can not only be in a nuclear family but also encourage rich children.

Furthermore we should also give even higher tax breaks to people who are both beautiful and rich to encourage beautiful and rich children.

Also we do not have enough beautiful rich black people with nuclear families so we should just allow them to pay no taxes to encourage more beautiful rich black children in a nuclear environment.

Finally we do not have enough beautiful rich black people geniuses with nuclear families so we should pay them to reproduce.
The above all have the potential to have their given "beautiful rich geniuses", homosexuals... not so much.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2010 3:00:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/29/2010 2:43:52 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Well marriage was introduced to the legal sphere as an incentive to increase children in the nuclear family. Most countries have adapted such a natal policy because a high rated of population growth is usually beneficial. Homosexuals were never intended to be married. The tax relief and cohabitation support was only made to support married people under the assumption that they would reproduce. It doesn't take a genius to understand that homosexuals can't reproduce so the very need of a legal homosexual marriage is pointless.:

The need for legal marriage is pointless either way. Secondly, should an infertile or elderly couple not be allowed to marry on the basis that it's "pointless?"

Now, this won't concern any minarchist libertarians:

Whoops
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2010 3:09:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm against legal Marriage in the UK and USA, I agree. Try and see the other side though.

At 12/29/2010 3:00:32 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 12/29/2010 2:43:52 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Well marriage was introduced to the legal sphere as an incentive to increase children in the nuclear family. Most countries have adapted such a natal policy because a high rated of population growth is usually beneficial. Homosexuals were never intended to be married. The tax relief and cohabitation support was only made to support married people under the assumption that they would reproduce. It doesn't take a genius to understand that homosexuals can't reproduce so the very need of a legal homosexual marriage is pointless.:

The need for legal marriage is pointless either way. Secondly, should an infertile or elderly couple not be allowed to marry on the basis that it's "pointless?"
Infertiles are a minority, also many conditions that cause infertility are now treatable. Also, the elderly should have had their kids already or otherwise got a professional job in which they won't need tax brakes. If they couldn't work due to disability or other restrictions support would have been given in the form of welfare and child support.

Now, this won't concern any minarchist libertarians:

Whoops
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2010 3:11:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/29/2010 2:43:52 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Well marriage was introduced to the legal sphere as an incentive to increase children in the nuclear family. Most countries have adapted such a natal policy because a high rated of population growth is usually beneficial. Homosexuals were never intended to be married. The tax relief and cohabitation support was only made to support married people under the assumption that they would reproduce. It doesn't take a genius to understand that homosexuals can't reproduce so the very need of a legal homosexual marriage is pointless.

A pro natal policy is actually still useful in this day and age(for making up for the surplus dependent classes). Now, this won't concern any minarchist libertarians but what do others think? If marriage is part of a pro natal policy, is it discriminant to not give it homosexuals that right and give them a hollow marriage - the civil partnership?

The same thing can be achieved by use of dependent tax exemptions, if you have kids, you get a discount, regardless of marital status.

Or government can simply stop with "marriage" and do everyone as a "civil union" and leave the marriage ceremony to the religious institutes.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2010 3:15:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/29/2010 3:11:24 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 12/29/2010 2:43:52 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Well marriage was introduced to the legal sphere as an incentive to increase children in the nuclear family. Most countries have adapted such a natal policy because a high rated of population growth is usually beneficial. Homosexuals were never intended to be married. The tax relief and cohabitation support was only made to support married people under the assumption that they would reproduce. It doesn't take a genius to understand that homosexuals can't reproduce so the very need of a legal homosexual marriage is pointless.

A pro natal policy is actually still useful in this day and age(for making up for the surplus dependent classes). Now, this won't concern any minarchist libertarians but what do others think? If marriage is part of a pro natal policy, is it discriminant to not give it homosexuals that right and give them a hollow marriage - the civil partnership?

The same thing can be achieved by use of dependent tax exemptions, if you have kids, you get a discount, regardless of marital status.
Surplus children - trash population - welfare generation ect. This insures the children have two parents that are together which sociology and government statistics prove is beneficial.

Or government can simply stop with "marriage" and do everyone as a "civil union" and leave the marriage ceremony to the religious institutes.
True.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2010 3:19:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/29/2010 3:09:26 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
I'm against legal Marriage in the UK and USA, I agree. Try and see the other side though.:

I once was on the other side. I've since reformed.

Infertiles are a minority, also many conditions that cause infertility are now treatable. Also, the elderly should have had their kids already or otherwise got a professional job in which they won't need tax brakes. If they couldn't work due to disability or other restrictions support would have been given in the form of welfare and child support.:

People generally find that they are infertile after they're married. And no prerequisite for marriage stipulates that you need to be fertile. That would be discriminatory.

So since they know after-the-fact, and suppose it was cervical cancer that necessitated the removal of the uterus, would that be grounds for either a divorce or a cancellation of their tax breaks?

I mean, doesn't that say much more about the state of our taxation than it does anything else?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2010 3:20:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/29/2010 3:15:13 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 12/29/2010 3:11:24 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 12/29/2010 2:43:52 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Well marriage was introduced to the legal sphere as an incentive to increase children in the nuclear family. Most countries have adapted such a natal policy because a high rated of population growth is usually beneficial. Homosexuals were never intended to be married. The tax relief and cohabitation support was only made to support married people under the assumption that they would reproduce. It doesn't take a genius to understand that homosexuals can't reproduce so the very need of a legal homosexual marriage is pointless.

A pro natal policy is actually still useful in this day and age(for making up for the surplus dependent classes). Now, this won't concern any minarchist libertarians but what do others think? If marriage is part of a pro natal policy, is it discriminant to not give it homosexuals that right and give them a hollow marriage - the civil partnership?

The same thing can be achieved by use of dependent tax exemptions, if you have kids, you get a discount, regardless of marital status.
Surplus children - trash population - welfare generation ect. This insures the children have two parents that are together which sociology and government statistics prove is beneficial.

You can limit the number. And marriage doesn't really provide that many tax advantages. Unless only one person is working (because you get the tax credit for both of you), but if both are working, then if they each take their half or group the tax advantage together, it comes out the same.

There is also the sad part about filing together, that your spouses income and bump you into a higher tax bracket, while if you file separately, you both can stay in lower brackets.

Honestly, I'm just brain storming, tossing out ideas and seeing if they can go anywhere.


Or government can simply stop with "marriage" and do everyone as a "civil union" and leave the marriage ceremony to the religious institutes.
True.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2010 3:29:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/29/2010 3:19:08 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 12/29/2010 3:09:26 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
I'm against legal Marriage in the UK and USA, I agree. Try and see the other side though.:

I once was on the other side. I've since reformed.
So you're for Marriage?

Infertiles are a minority, also many conditions that cause infertility are now treatable. Also, the elderly should have had their kids already or otherwise got a professional job in which they won't need tax brakes. If they couldn't work due to disability or other restrictions support would have been given in the form of welfare and child support.:

People generally find that they are infertile after they're married. And no prerequisite for marriage stipulates that you need to be fertile. That would be discriminatory.

So since they know after-the-fact, and suppose it was cervical cancer that necessitated the removal of the uterus, would that be grounds for either a divorce or a cancellation of their tax breaks?

I mean, doesn't that say much more about the state of our taxation than it does anything else?
They are such a small minority that they can be accepted into the system with no real effect on the overall balance. Civil Partnerships however are a much greater class than the minority of special cases that are predominantly infertile.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2010 3:35:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/29/2010 3:20:46 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 12/29/2010 3:15:13 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 12/29/2010 3:11:24 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 12/29/2010 2:43:52 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Well marriage was introduced to the legal sphere as an incentive to increase children in the nuclear family. Most countries have adapted such a natal policy because a high rated of population growth is usually beneficial. Homosexuals were never intended to be married. The tax relief and cohabitation support was only made to support married people under the assumption that they would reproduce. It doesn't take a genius to understand that homosexuals can't reproduce so the very need of a legal homosexual marriage is pointless.

A pro natal policy is actually still useful in this day and age(for making up for the surplus dependent classes). Now, this won't concern any minarchist libertarians but what do others think? If marriage is part of a pro natal policy, is it discriminant to not give it homosexuals that right and give them a hollow marriage - the civil partnership?

The same thing can be achieved by use of dependent tax exemptions, if you have kids, you get a discount, regardless of marital status.
Surplus children - trash population - welfare generation ect. This insures the children have two parents that are together which sociology and government statistics prove is beneficial.

You can limit the number.
Of children it applies to?
And marriage doesn't really provide that many tax advantages. Unless only one person is working (because you get the tax credit for both of you), but if both are working, then if they each take their half or group the tax advantage together, it comes out the same.
I thought it depended on the state but okay. It used to be much stronger but most of the tax advantages where removed soon after second wave feminism and alimony laws in the early 70s.

There is also the sad part about filing together, that your spouses income and bump you into a higher tax bracket, while if you file separately, you both can stay in lower brackets.
Sorry, I don't get you.

Honestly, I'm just brain storming, tossing out ideas and seeing if they can go anywhere.


Or government can simply stop with "marriage" and do everyone as a "civil union" and leave the marriage ceremony to the religious institutes.
True.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2010 3:40:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I once was on the other side. I've since reformed.
So you're for Marriage?:

Well, I don't see a huge need except in the event of a separation, where goods were accumulated together. Then some protection becomes necessary.

They are such a small minority that they can be accepted into the system with no real effect on the overall balance. Civil Partnerships however are a much greater class than the minority of special cases that are predominantly infertile.:

The same could be said of homosexual couples; that they're a small minority. But more to the point, it was more of a philosophical question -- why procreation becomes the automatic basis for marriage.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2010 3:45:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I am in for religious marriage - legal marriages don't matter. However, society has a problem which, in my eyes, makes legal marriage beneficial, but then there's a problem between people regarding which couples marriage should entail.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2010 3:47:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/29/2010 3:45:07 PM, Mirza wrote:
I am in for religious marriage - legal marriages don't matter. However, society has a problem which, in my eyes, makes legal marriage beneficial, but then there's a problem between people regarding which couples marriage should entail.

Sorry for the off-topic post, Mirza, but I'm still interested in hearing what you have to say about fornication in the other topic.

^Upon typing this, I had a realization that this would sound absurd in any other context.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2010 3:52:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/29/2010 3:47:00 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 12/29/2010 3:45:07 PM, Mirza wrote:
I am in for religious marriage - legal marriages don't matter. However, society has a problem which, in my eyes, makes legal marriage beneficial, but then there's a problem between people regarding which couples marriage should entail.

Sorry for the off-topic post, Mirza, but I'm still interested in hearing what you have to say about fornication in the other topic.

^Upon typing this, I had a realization that this would sound absurd in any other context.:

HAHA!
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2010 3:58:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/29/2010 3:35:19 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 12/29/2010 3:20:46 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 12/29/2010 3:15:13 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 12/29/2010 3:11:24 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 12/29/2010 2:43:52 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Well marriage was introduced to the legal sphere as an incentive to increase children in the nuclear family. Most countries have adapted such a natal policy because a high rated of population growth is usually beneficial. Homosexuals were never intended to be married. The tax relief and cohabitation support was only made to support married people under the assumption that they would reproduce. It doesn't take a genius to understand that homosexuals can't reproduce so the very need of a legal homosexual marriage is pointless.

A pro natal policy is actually still useful in this day and age(for making up for the surplus dependent classes). Now, this won't concern any minarchist libertarians but what do others think? If marriage is part of a pro natal policy, is it discriminant to not give it homosexuals that right and give them a hollow marriage - the civil partnership?

The same thing can be achieved by use of dependent tax exemptions, if you have kids, you get a discount, regardless of marital status.
Surplus children - trash population - welfare generation ect. This insures the children have two parents that are together which sociology and government statistics prove is beneficial.

You can limit the number.
Of children it applies to?

Yes, like you only get the tax discount for the first 3 (with possible exceptions if you are on your 3rd pregnancy and it turns out to be twins).

And marriage doesn't really provide that many tax advantages. Unless only one person is working (because you get the tax credit for both of you), but if both are working, then if they each take their half or group the tax advantage together, it comes out the same.
I thought it depended on the state but okay. It used to be much stronger but most of the tax advantages where removed soon after second wave feminism and alimony laws in the early 70s.

It does vary from state to state, but it also applies to federal tax breaks. Each person gets standard tax deduction (unless you choose to itemize). Each single person gets $5,700, and a married couple gets $11,400. So there really is no benefit unless only one person is working (and the other is a homemaker).


There is also the sad part about filing together, that your spouses income and bump you into a higher tax bracket, while if you file separately, you both can stay in lower brackets.
Sorry, I don't get you.

If you make $70,000 a year and your spouse also makes $70,000 a year. Your tax rate would be $13,680 each, for a total of $27,360. If you file together at $140,000, your tax rate would $27,440 (only $80 more).

This particular example doesn't seem like a big difference (probably because it isn't), but if we look at the case where both you and your spouse are making $82,400 each, the difference between filing married and single is $826.

However, if only one person is working, or if one person is only working part time and making a little money, filing married is really good. So it can vary.

http://www.moneychimp.com...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
wamba
Posts: 688
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2010 10:24:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/29/2010 3:00:11 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 12/29/2010 2:55:11 PM, wamba wrote:
At 12/29/2010 2:43:52 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Well marriage was introduced to the legal sphere as an incentive to increase children in the nuclear family. Most countries have adapted such a natal policy because a high rated of population growth is usually beneficial. Homosexuals were never intended to be married. The tax relief and cohabitation support was only made to support married people under the assumption that they would reproduce. It doesn't take a genius to understand that homosexuals can't reproduce so the very need of a legal homosexual marriage is pointless.

A pro natal policy is actually still useful in this day and age(for making up for the surplus dependent classes). Now, this won't concern any minarchist libertarians but what do others think? If marriage is part of a pro natal policy, is it discriminant to not give it homosexuals that right and give them a hollow marriage - the civil partnership?

With this logic we should also give higher tax breaks to the rich so the child can not only be in a nuclear family but also encourage rich children.

Furthermore we should also give even higher tax breaks to people who are both beautiful and rich to encourage beautiful and rich children.

Also we do not have enough beautiful rich black people with nuclear families so we should just allow them to pay no taxes to encourage more beautiful rich black children in a nuclear environment.

Finally we do not have enough beautiful rich black people geniuses with nuclear families so we should pay them to reproduce.
The above all have the potential to have their given "beautiful rich geniuses", homosexuals... not so much.

However carrying on your logic even excluding homosexuals, it fails.
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2010 12:05:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/29/2010 2:55:11 PM, wamba wrote:
At 12/29/2010 2:43:52 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Well marriage was introduced to the legal sphere as an incentive to increase children in the nuclear family. Most countries have adapted such a natal policy because a high rated of population growth is usually beneficial. Homosexuals were never intended to be married. The tax relief and cohabitation support was only made to support married people under the assumption that they would reproduce. It doesn't take a genius to understand that homosexuals can't reproduce so the very need of a legal homosexual marriage is pointless.

A pro natal policy is actually still useful in this day and age(for making up for the surplus dependent classes). Now, this won't concern any minarchist libertarians but what do others think? If marriage is part of a pro natal policy, is it discriminant to not give it homosexuals that right and give them a hollow marriage - the civil partnership?

With this logic we should also give higher tax breaks to the rich so the child can not only be in a nuclear family but also encourage rich children.

Furthermore we should also give even higher tax breaks to people who are both beautiful and rich to encourage beautiful and rich children.

Also we do not have enough beautiful rich black people with nuclear families so we should just allow them to pay no taxes to encourage more beautiful rich black children in a nuclear environment.

Finally we do not have enough beautiful rich black people geniuses with nuclear families so we should pay them to reproduce.

Ok, but the legal benefits from being married are being kept from gays. Not to mention that gays can adopt, so they'd also have children just like straight people. Not to mention that not all straight married people have children
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2010 12:09:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/29/2010 3:45:07 PM, Mirza wrote:
I am in for religious marriage - legal marriages don't matter. However, society has a problem which, in my eyes, makes legal marriage beneficial, but then there's a problem between people regarding which couples marriage should entail.

Once again, the legal benefits people gain from marriage are what matters. If they dropped marriage as being a legal issue for all, that would be fine. But, wouldn't it just be simpler to just give gays those same benefits?
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2011 2:02:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/29/2010 10:24:35 PM, wamba wrote:
At 12/29/2010 3:00:11 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
The above all have the potential to have their given "beautiful rich geniuses", homosexuals... not so much.

However carrying on your logic even excluding homosexuals, it fails.
What's the point in giving homosexuals tax relief and welfare bonuses, tell me this?

At 12/30/2010 12:05:44 AM, rogue wrote:

Ok, but the legal benefits from being married are being kept from gays.
That's the point.
Not to mention that gays can adopt, so they'd also have children just like straight people.
I love how this always comes up: "they can adopt". People who adopt already get carer and child benifits when they adopt - married people don't get the former, the carer's bonus. Most married homosexuals don't adopt anyway.
Not to mention that not all straight married people have children.
See what I told Orele.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2011 4:31:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/30/2010 12:09:39 AM, rogue wrote:
Once again, the legal benefits people gain from marriage are what matters. If they dropped marriage as being a legal issue for all, that would be fine. But, wouldn't it just be simpler to just give gays those same benefits?
From your perspective, yes. From mine, no. I don't support homosexuality, especially not gay marriage. I don't care about the legal benefits. If something goes against my moral views, I won't support it no matter what good it brings, because it's not more good than it is bad. And if we remove the benefits of legal marriage, but still have it as something which binds people together so they can think twice before going out with others etc., then I will support that. I am into religious marriage, not legal marriage, but for the sake of not having fornication etc. spreading, I think there should be legal marriage for non-religious people.
wamba
Posts: 688
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2011 4:34:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/30/2010 12:05:44 AM, rogue wrote:
At 12/29/2010 2:55:11 PM, wamba wrote:
At 12/29/2010 2:43:52 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Well marriage was introduced to the legal sphere as an incentive to increase children in the nuclear family. Most countries have adapted such a natal policy because a high rated of population growth is usually beneficial. Homosexuals were never intended to be married. The tax relief and cohabitation support was only made to support married people under the assumption that they would reproduce. It doesn't take a genius to understand that homosexuals can't reproduce so the very need of a legal homosexual marriage is pointless.

A pro natal policy is actually still useful in this day and age(for making up for the surplus dependent classes). Now, this won't concern any minarchist libertarians but what do others think? If marriage is part of a pro natal policy, is it discriminant to not give it homosexuals that right and give them a hollow marriage - the civil partnership?

With this logic we should also give higher tax breaks to the rich so the child can not only be in a nuclear family but also encourage rich children.

Furthermore we should also give even higher tax breaks to people who are both beautiful and rich to encourage beautiful and rich children.

Also we do not have enough beautiful rich black people with nuclear families so we should just allow them to pay no taxes to encourage more beautiful rich black children in a nuclear environment.

Finally we do not have enough beautiful rich black people geniuses with nuclear families so we should pay them to reproduce.

Ok, but the legal benefits from being married are being kept from gays. Not to mention that gays can adopt, so they'd also have children just like straight people. Not to mention that not all straight married people have children

I was not agreeing with what I stated, just showing how Zetsubou's logic when carried further makes absolutely no sense.
wamba
Posts: 688
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2011 4:38:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/1/2011 2:02:54 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 12/29/2010 10:24:35 PM, wamba wrote:
However carrying on your logic even excluding homosexuals, it fails.
What's the point in giving homosexuals tax relief and welfare bonuses, tell me this?

What's the point in giving tax relief and welfare bonuses based upon your sexual orientation? If the benefit is raising a child, then why give the benefit for rearing a child?

The problem isn't that we aren't producing enough children and thus we need tax incentives to produce more.

The problem is that we do not have enough people to rear children via adoption.

See abortion rates.

I love how this always comes up: "they can adopt". People who adopt already get carer and child benifits when they adopt

Then why give benefits for being married? What's the societal benefit?
wamba
Posts: 688
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2011 4:41:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/1/2011 4:31:53 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/30/2010 12:09:39 AM, rogue wrote:
Once again, the legal benefits people gain from marriage are what matters. If they dropped marriage as being a legal issue for all, that would be fine. But, wouldn't it just be simpler to just give gays those same benefits?
From your perspective, yes. From mine, no. I don't support homosexuality, especially not gay marriage. I don't care about the legal benefits. If something goes against my moral views, I won't support it no matter what good it brings, because it's not more good than it is bad. And if we remove the benefits of legal marriage, but still have it as something which binds people together so they can think twice before going out with others etc., then I will support that. I am into religious marriage, not legal marriage, but for the sake of not having fornication etc. spreading, I think there should be legal marriage for non-religious people.

So you would rather have Gays committ two wrongs rather than one?

If you perceive that:

1. Homosexuality is wrong

2. Sex outside of marriage is wrong

Then you are incorrect in saying that allowing marriage would produce more har than good.

Currently in your perception homosexuals are committing the two wrongs named above. By accepting gay marriage you would reduce the number of perceived wrongs to one.