My best friend just wrote this paper for her psych class. In response, your thoughts on gay marriage are welcome.



Should gay marriage be legal? To some people, the mere thought of this possibility makes their bones shake; to others, the idea brings a satisfying smirk to their lips. Due to the great diversity of opinion in America, heated controversy over this issue is not uncommon. In society today, a rapidly growing number of people feel that homosexual couples, in addition to heterosexuals, should enjoy the benefits of marriage. On the other hand, there are also those who feel heterosexual marriage is the only valid form of the institution. To fully understand the effects of the legalization of gay marriage, one must thoroughly evaluate the arguments for each side and come to a conclusion on their own. THIS REPORT WILL FIRST EXAMINE THE VIEWS OF THOSE WHO FEEL THE LEGALIZATION OF GAY MARRIAGE IS WRONG AND THEN LOOK AT THOSE WHO FEEL IT IS RIGHT.

Although it would seem natural to most people that the split between the two opinionated factions on gay marriage would fall between conservative Christians and liberals, this actually proves untrue. In a World Magazine article written in June 2000, Edward Plowman writes about how the Baptist church feels so diversely that they are splitting. For example, he quotes Paul Aita, an American Baptist Church minister, as saying that “the differences on homosexuality cause such tensions that we cannot function as one.” The United Methodist Church also has a great deal of conflict within its denominations. According to Plowman, “Following a report on how the United Methodist Church’s general conference in Cleveland last month stood by its position that homosexual practice is incompatible with Christian teaching, and upheld bans on same-sex union and ordinations of practicing homosexuals, dozens of angry ministers stood.” Even with the commonly held belief among Churches that homosexual practice is incompatible with Christian teaching, a number of ministers disagree and even choose to perform blessings on homosexual unions, risking banishment.

A somewhat different view than those of various Christian denominations is held by people who feel gay marriage should not be legalized for non-Biblical reasons. According to Stanley Kurtz, the growing tolerance for gay marriage is one of the factors contributing to the weakening marriage institution between heterosexual couples. Basically, men and women have an inherently compatible nature that allows them to lead strong married lives. Kurtz summarizes this nature best in exposing that “women approach sex differently than men, and that women, by waiting, help men to yoke together love and sex in a way that leads to and strengthens marriage.” In other words, women help to make men amenable to marriage. Alternately, when two men are in a relationship together, the sexual dynamic is skewed. Even if one man assumes the role of the woman in the relationship, it does not mean he has the characteristics or ability of a woman to tame a man into being prepared for a committed marriage. According to Benjamin Ginsberg, Theodore Lowi, and Margaret Weir in We the People, the reasons for restricting marriage to heterosexual couples involve more than just the basic characteristics of the two sexes. Instead, according to their insights, “every child needs both a strong, loving male role model and a strong, loving female role model, so both genders can understand each other.” While they do allow for someone outside of the parental role to fill the need of either role model, they also state that “since parents are the ones children know best and parents have the best chance of developing a close reciprocal relationship with their kids, the impact of parents is correspondingly greater.”

For a balanced perspective, it is crucial to also examine the beliefs of people who feel gay marriage should be legalized. According to Jonathan Rauch, through legalization of gay marriage, the marriage institute as a whole could actually be strengthened. The issue basically comes down to a person’s definition of marriage, says David Link. If marriage is defined as the union of two people of opposite sexes, it is easy to see why one would feel gay marriage should not be legal. However, if the definition deals strictly with the union and commitment of two people of either sex, the uproar over the issue of gay marriage legalization disappears. The position most commonly held by supporters of gay marriage is that marriage is a commitment intended to encourage the mutual support, care, and affection of one’s partner. According to Link, whether that commitment is made by same-sex couples or not is irrelevant because marriage itself is important to social stability and order. Another opinion on why gay marriage should be legalized comes from Roger Winters, who argues in his article, Freedom to Marry and the Pursuit of Happiness, that “many same-sex couples are involved in long-term relationships, indicating that people are able to be really married though considered legal strangers.” He also points out that marriage is key to the pursuit of happiness that we are granted as American citizens. In other words, it is wrong to deprive people of this fundamental value based on their sexual orientation.

In conclusion, use this information to strengthen your own convictions as to whether or not gay marriage should be legalized. Also keep in mind, however, that the homosexual lifestyle is a distinctively different topic than what has been addressed here and, as such, should not be judged as right or wrong based on the information given.

Edit: Fixed the paragraph breaks.

why shouldn't it be? not special rights, equal rights.

i have yet to see a valid reason why they SHOULDNT exist

to many people say "its a crime against god" but MY god thinks its fine or he wouldnt have made people that way so freedom of religion says it MUST be alowed

I think it is sad that this is even a topic of debate.

ESPECIALLY in the government.

I have yet to hear a single reason even resembling valid to not allow homosexuals the same rights afforded to heterosexuals.

Yeah, why not?

I dont care where people stick their... appendages.

Any marriage that does not produce offspring is useless and should therefore be banned. Not just gay marriages here, notice....

I see no problem with it. Why not let homosexuals have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else?

Nice essay god is irrelevant! I didn't read it all, but I can tell you have done your research, and you seem to have presented it well! I would ask for your opinion on whether Gay marriage should be legal, and how you have come to this conclusion.

My opinion (that may not be welcome) is, however, that marriage is before God, and two men cannot go before God because marriage is (in my opinion) for providing security for two adults who wish to have children.

Originally posted by Zero
Any marriage that does not produce offspring is useless and should therefore be banned. Not just gay marriages here, notice....

suppose two people are madly in love and want to spend their lives together. should they not be allowed tax breaks and spousal rights if they choose not to breed and further the dangerously high birthrate?

besides, a lot of gay couples raise children and do a damn good job of it. you have to really love your kids to make that much of an effort for them. it's not challenging to get knocked up and have to live with the mistake.

Let 'em marry! It's nice to see someone still places a value on the institution. Anyway, who does it hurt?

Alright I'm against same-sex marriage quite strongly. What people choose to do in the privacy of their own bedroom is their own business but when something like this begins to derail the universally accepted formula of man + woman = marriage I just get frusterated. This isn't just about equal rights. This is about defective people selfishly trying to usher in a society that works for them and in the process taking no note of the fact that they might be ruining it for other people. I believe very strongly in marriage but somehow now it just feels tainted. Especially considering my marriage certificate will apparently be reading "Person and person" as opposed to the traditional "bride and bridegroom". But being that same-sex marriage appears to be the future in my country, I guess I'll tolerate it because I have no choice (which raises a few issues about the legal process in Canada but that's another story).

I am, above all, VERY against homosexual couples who choose to raise children. I believe that that, above all else in this same-sex debate crap, is a true CRIME. Children cannot be raised in such an awkward situation. Values and views of life could be so horribly shaken in those early, impressionable years that I fear what might happen to a kid. An otherwise straight kid might end up gay just because he was raised believing it's "the way to go" and that is a horrible way to eliminate somebody from the gene pool. I'm not so naive as to presume I know what causes homosexuality but I would put my money down that there are a lot of gays out there who were not born that way.

Call me a homophobe or whatever you want -- not my problem. Gay people can be gay, I'll even tolerate them getting married if I have to, but leave the children out of it.

I think Gay marriage is great!

I mean lets look at all the things that make marriage:

Religion: Many non-religious couples get married, marriage is not necisarilly just a christian or jewish or whatever institution. Also many religious people support gay marriage. So I say if aethists can do it so can anyone else!

Love: Is anyone doubting that there can be love between two people of the same sex? Love knows no bounds. It used to be that love could not possibly happen across racial, religious or social bounds. But look now?

Sex: Well sex can be a relivent or irrelivent part of marriage. There are sects of the catholic church where monks and nuns who wish to enter the monastary must be married. But while part of the church no sexual interaction can occur. Gay couples just as straight couples will have sex out of wedlock. its unfortunate but it happens.

Anyways Love knows no bounds! Celebrate love not hate.

i will lay down the gauntlet for the god knows how many time.

how does who i marry effect YOU?

now if anyone wants to quote the bible i will remind them of 2 things

first i can follow whatever religion i like and my belifes dont include gay = evil

second in most countrys church and state are seprate

so now please point out a logical reason why i shouldnt marry a guy?

xelius00:
This isn't just about equal rights. This is about defective people selfishly trying to usher in a society that works for them and in the process taking no note of the fact that they might be ruining it for other people

Ruining what? Your romanticised view of involuntary servitude?

But being that same-sex marriage appears to be the future in my country, I guess I'll tolerate it because I have no choice

Bend over and take it like a little fundie!

Values and views of life could be so horribly shaken in those early, impressionable years that I fear what might happen to a kid.

Better to be raised by a loving, gay couple than by a bible-thumping psycho who believes that the earth is 6000 years old and a woman's place is in the kitchen.
You're the one who'd fuck a kid's mind up.

at least they will be tought to respect other peoples decisions and there right to chose to be who ever they want to be

which is more than i can say they would learn from YOU

how would you deal with it if your son brought home a BF or your daughter a GF?

I still just don't understand how alowing homosexual marriages would be negatively affecting anyone else. Also I don't see how it's anyone's right to say that I can't get married, that's just insanity. I honestly don't give a shit about what church does or doesn't preform ceremonies, if they wanna' back out on that, fine, let 'em, but the fact that the government is doing it to is nothing but a flat out admission that our leaders are a bunch of homophobes and heterosexists.

This isn't just some sort of kinky sex thing, it's not a phase, this is my life for gods sake. Why in the world should I be treated like a second class citizen just because of who I love?

Originally posted by xelius00
This is about defective people selfishly trying to usher in a society that works for them and in the process taking no note of the fact that they might be ruining it for other people.

This is about people trying to make the world stop working against them.

They are not ruining anything for anyone.

They are not "defective".

Abandon your homophobic and heterosexist views. Ideas like these have been keeping me from what is mine for too long.

Originally posted by Asguard
i have yet to see a valid reason why they SHOULDNT exist

to many people say "its a crime against god" but MY god thinks its fine or he wouldnt have made people that way so freedom of religion says it MUST be alowed

Asquard, when you find a good reason to why can't a person have sex or marry a horse or a ghorilla, then you might have an aswer to why same sex people shouldn't have sex or be married.....

Originally posted by Xev
xelius00:


Ruining what? Your romanticised view of involuntary servitude?



Xev,
Maybe today's environment is allowing you to open up that closet door a bit wider, but watch out it's a trick, that road doesn't lead to the twisted version of liberation you dream of, and soon enough, nature will kick you in the groin back to your closet as you should be.....AIDS and STD's are not the only weapons in mother's nature pocket for eliminating sexual perverts....

PS. Don't call me cruel and homophobic, nature is the cruel one that is homophobic.

Originally posted by Mystech
This is about people trying to make the world stop working against them.

They are not ruining anything for anyone.

They are not "defective".

Abandon your homophobic and heterosexist views. Ideas like these have been keeping me from what is mine for too long.

A conservative gay rights group has been working against gays who are trying to have same sex marriage legalized, and have called those trying to legalize it "selfish" and "irresponsible"... can't remember the name of the group, but I can guarantee you that my views have nothing to do with homophobia or heretosexism considering they're shared by gay people as well. My views are simply based on what I believe in, same as yours.

Gay people have been given everything, it's even illegal to refuse to hire a person because they're visibly gay. It's illegal to make fun of a gay person. Gay people can come out of the closet and continue living life as normally as a straight person. Gay people are a socially acceptable as your average heterosexual white male. Hell, the only thing they CAN'T do is get married, although that apparently isn't going to last long. I would like to see them given some type of a legal union if they're so adament about it but I wish they would just leave your standard marriage definition alone. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, not "two people".

I have a donkey fetish ok? If two guys can legally get married, then I want to marry a donkey. It's not disgusting. Ideas like these have been keeping me from what is mine for too long... :bugeye:

Flores:
Maybe today's environment is allowing you to open up that closet door a bit wider, but watch out it's a trick, that road doesn't lead to the twisted version of liberation you dream of, and soon enough, nature will kick you in the groin back to your closet as you should be.....AIDS and STD's are not the only weapons in mother's nature pocket for eliminating sexual perverts....

Pure assertion. "Mother nature" doesn't have any existence beyond fantasy, nor does "mother nature" have any likes or dislikes regarding "sexual perverts".

Xelius:
Historically, marriage is a commercial transaction. Nothing more, nothing less, and closely tied to the institution of slavery (witness events like the rape of the Sabines - you'll need to look this up, not being a very educated sort - or the Viking practice of marriage by abduction)

Marriage is romanticised involuntary domestic/sexual servitude. You want to keep that great tradition going, suit yourself.

Originally posted by Xev

Xelius:
Historically, marriage is a commercial transaction. Nothing more, nothing less, and closely tied to the institution of slavery (witness events like the rape of the Sabines - you'll need to look this up, not being a very educated sort - or the Viking practice of marriage by abduction)

Marriage is romanticised involuntary domestic/sexual servitude. You want to keep that great tradition going, suit yourself.

Not a very educated sort hmm? I'm 17 and in University, among other achievements, so if anything I'd say I'm quite the opposite.

Don't try to make me out to be an idiot because I advocate tradition. And for the record, I don't advocate this "slave marriage" crap, nor am I a religious zealot, I just believe in the union between a man and a woman. Nothing more, nothing less.

Originally posted by xelius00
I have a donkey fetish ok? If two guys can legally get married, then I want to marry a donkey. It's not disgusting. Ideas like these have been keeping me from what is mine for too long... :bugeye: hey, please don't get discouraged! i went through a donkey phase at one point too, and i know your views are simply based on your natural feelings of attraction to this beast of burden. i'm sure most people will accept you as easily as the average heterosexual white male... anyways, i really would like to see a type of legal union allowed for you and your ass, but i do ask that you leave my standard marriage definition alone! :D

(come on, i know you understand the difference between humans and animals. homosexuals are completely separate from people who enjoy that sick stuff.)



seriously though, i think the legalization of gay marriage is the next step in societal reformation. it doesn't matter what "standard marriage definition" our founding fathers believed in, because we already know they had a couple other beliefs that needed correction. (see also: slavery. see also: unequal rights for women.) the evolution of society thrives on changes, even fundamental changes, and our constitution allows for amendments when we feel the need. i think it's time to take the next step forward and move towards equal marriage rights for all sexual orientations.



note: my friend who wrote the paper is adamantly against gay marriage, and would align herself with the conservative points of view in this discussion. i helped her edit that paper to sound like a reasonable, unbiased analysis of the issue.

xelius00

I respect your views on the subject, and I'm sure you would have chosen different wording had you been on this particular wavelength, but:
This is about defective people selfishly trying to usher in a society that works for them and in the process taking no note of the fact that they might be ruining it for other people.

You mean like when they put in craploads of handicapped parking spaces, all in the nice, shady (and usually safer) spots at the store while the rest of us have to cross frying-pan hot parking lots, and in the evening risk getting mugged walking out to our cars because we dare be healthy? There is an incident in my town right now where a particularly pleasant part of a downtown plaza is roped off to everybody because there is no wheelchair access? Or a bus taking extra long at the stop because the wheelchair ramp has to be deployed, lowered, the person has to be rolled onto the ramp, buckled in, rolled to a special place on the bus (and if any non-defective people are there, they have to give up the seat), strapped in, and then the ramp has to be tucked in before we can all go?

The handicapped people had no choice about there condition, and I don't believe homosexuality is a choice. any more than heterosexuality is a choice. It's a matter of what chemicals are firing in what amounts.

Don't get me wrong. I'm no flaming liberal. In fact, my husband and I are right-wing Republicans. (I describe myself as one part Joan Jett, one part June Cleaver.) It's just that I have met far too many cool people and upstanding citizens who are gay. They never preached to me about it or made me try to see it their way, they were just men and women who were gay.

(I also take the "Liberty and Justice for all" thing a little seriously, which is the only reason I hadn't joined the lynch mob outside the Modesto City Jail the night they brough Scott Peterson in. I think he did it, but he still deserves a fair trial.)

Originally posted by Flores
AIDS and STD's are not the only weapons in mother's nature pocket for eliminating sexual perverts....

I hate to break it to you, Flores, but missionary sex between a man and a woman with the intent of conceiving a child is just as likely to transmit disease as any other kind of "deviant" sex. Other sexual positions or the like do not create disease, they simply transmit it, and really any position, so long as fluids are being exchanged, is just as likely to allow the transmission of disease.

Oh, and one more thing, how do you explain the fact that AIDS is primarily a heterosexual problem, being that the vast majority of aids patients are heterosexual.

Originally posted by Flores
PS. Don't call me cruel and homophobic, nature is the cruel one that is homophobic.

How is this, again? You know, people often accuse others of displaying traits that they themselves posses and are insecure about.

Originally posted by xelius00
Gay people have been given everything, it's even illegal to refuse to hire a person because they're visibly gay. It's illegal to make fun of a gay person. Gay people can come out of the closet and continue living life as normally as a straight person. Gay people are a socially acceptable as your average heterosexual white male.

Well I had no idea that Canada was such a happy fantasy land, but even if you are correct (and not just blind to the truth of things which I feel is quite a bit more likely) these conditions do not exist everywhere.

Originally posted by xelius00
I have a donkey fetish ok? If two guys can legally get married, then I want to marry a donkey. It's not disgusting. Ideas like these have been keeping me from what is mine for too long... :bugeye:

If you can't see the difference between having a sexual fetish for animals (which are not sentient and are incapable of love like a human is, and which you simply can not have a relationship with) and two people falling in love with eachother and wanting to spend the rest of their lives together, then you are even more screwed up than I thought.

As I said before, this isn't just some sort of kinky sex thing, you jerk, this is what some people feel is a normal and natural kind of relationship, and the difference between it and a heterosexual union is quite marginal, and frankly irrelevant.

Your screwed up opinion of my life which you have absolutely no stake in, and no right to arbitrate, should not be taken into account when considering weather or not my rights should be denied.

Flores

you moron

have you ever herd of CONSENT??????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????

What? Oxygen is back? Oxygen's alive! *cheers*

btw, everyone ignore Flores. Her anti Semitism, anti gay hate, and insulting language show what kind of person "she" is. I highly doubt if she's a mother of two, as "she" claims to be (don't guys love to pretend to be women?). I suspect him (much more likely) of being one of Bin Laden's teen admirers. He probably thinks it is cool to bash Jews and gays, among other things/people.

Well guess what Flores, the Supreme Court is moving in a direction you don't want it to move. And guess what, Mr Flores, there is nothing you can do about it. And guess what, Mr Flores, in case you think it won't affect you since you're Arabic, the decisions made in the US impact the entire world.

Doesn't that just SUCK for you? Go back to the stinking hole from where all Arabs crawled from.

Originally posted by xelius00
Not a very educated sort hmm? I'm 17 and in University, among other achievements, so if anything I'd say I'm quite the opposite.

Don't try to make me out to be an idiot because I advocate tradition. And for the record, I don't advocate this "slave marriage" crap, nor am I a religious zealot, I just believe in the union between a man and a woman. Nothing more, nothing less.

That means nothing, xelius00. You're still obviously uneducated. You think you're so smart because you're in a "University" (ooo note the cap)? IF you knew how easy it is to get into any crap university in the US your brief bout of pride would get its ass frozen to its chair.

Zero

Firstly: racisium is in very poor taste and not really apropriate in a thread questioning others lack of tolerance

but more importantly how far can your high court go with a presidant like bush at the helm?

i mean those laws have been gone from australian books for god knows how long and the US is JUST catching up

actully they have been steaderly bringing in laws to protect gays and others in victoria but i belive little johnny controls births, deaths and marriges not the states

sad seing as john will bend over whenever bush LOOKS at him

I agree with Asguard.
Zero, you're right about Flores. But when you make comments about Arabs, you are only making yourself appear as intolerant and as Flores her/him self. It seems a bit hypocritical when you attack Flores for being a bigot, when you appear to be one yourself.

Do you really think our prime minister is a lap dog, Asguard? What do you base that claim on?

Originally posted by Asguard
but more importantly how far can your high court go with a presidant like bush at the helm?


That’s "Supreme Court" actually, and they can go as far as they want regardless of the president, he doesn't have anything to do with the judicial branch. Only time he has anything to do with the Supreme Court is if we need some new justices, or if they want to shoot down some of the executive branch's ideas.

And Zero, I don't like Flores very much either, but where do you get off going on such a wildly accusatory and brainless rant like that? Do everyone a favor and keep your opinions to yourself.

Well first I'm a normal heterosexual man. Married for three years. And proud father of a beautiful blond baby boyof 15 months.


Half a year ago my brother-in-law married his friend. This was done in a joyess occation for lots of people.
My wife and I gave them a special gift. We prestented them with our will. Which states that should we come to die, they will get full custody of our childeren. I know that many of you people over the ocean would freak out about this. But I'm totally confident that my brothers-in-law would be the best parents of our child.
Because the are compassionate, wise, full of love, and secure in all aspects of their live.
So I sleep peacefully knowing that my son is wel taken care of should my wife and I meet an untimely demise.

Yeah , and know for you anti-persons. While reading your comments. I got a little scared. With all yours objections and explanetions. Just fill in your gay into black and you'll see how dicriminatory you are. All persons great or small, or something something..................... just a thought

Would could just attack Flores for being an ignorant fool.... who cares about what else she is. The ignorance is the most evident.

i'll say it again. they are not special rights! they are human rights owed to every single person living. gay people do not wish to be treated better, worse or any differently than anyone else. fill in the blank, whatever adjective might go in front of any person changes nothing. _______ deserves life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. _______ deserves the chance to fulfill the american dream. for many the american dream means working hard to earn a fulfilling career, sharing your life with a loving partner and raising a loving family. not everyone wants this but isn't mr./ms. fill-in-the-blank entitled to pursuing this if it will make them happy? now fill in the blank with gay, hispanic, arab, multiracial man/woman.

*i was going to add handicapped since it was mentioned, but they do deserve special rights as a means of obtaining equal rights because nature short-changed them and we are social creatures so it's our responsibility to take care of them.

end of rant

mountainhare


yes i do

just look at his actions when the US raised there steel tarifs, and everytime WE lower our tarifs and they refuse to

but thats not what this thread is about

Should gay marriage be legal?

Yes. I have not encountered a logical explanation as to why not.

In response to what zero said about the marraige not producing offspring therefore it being "useless", thats the same as suggesting that if a man or a woman is not physically able to reproduce, then their LIFE is useless, it makes no sense to make tis an argment of biological purposes

Originally posted by Asguard
i will lay down the gauntlet for the god knows how many time.

how does who i marry effect YOU?



in many marriages, there is a worker and a homemaker. the homemaker gets health benefits from the company the worker works at. currently, there is a health care crisis since there are a lot of wants and needs and not enough money to cover them all. if gays start to marry, their spouses get added into the mix. health care in this country will crumble. until the social services of this country is fixed, everything should stay on it's current path. there are far more pressing issues. in 20 years, 40% of our paychecks will go to the social security claims made today.

oh, flame me as much as you'd like, but all this was covered in my my economics 101 macroeconomics class.

you DO know they said the same about serfs?

THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING

now lets think logically about this

what right do you have to denie me the same rights YOU have?

B\W happier people are LESS likly to get sick, take days off and are more productive

INCREASING the econamy

if you had a decent teacher instead of a bigot they would teach that if you increase the happieness of workers you increase there productivity because they feel more gratitude for the company and sociaty than if you give ONLY what you HAVE to when they will do the same and take every opitunity to get OUT of working

as the goverment in victoria's slogan went:

"together we do better"

Originally posted by Asguard
you DO know they said the same about serfs?

THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING

now lets think logically about this

what right do you have to denie me the same rights YOU have?

B\W happier people are LESS likly to get sick, take days off and are more productive

INCREASING the econamy

if you had a decent teacher instead of a bigot they would teach that if you increase the happieness of workers you increase there productivity because they feel more gratitude for the company and sociaty than if you give ONLY what you HAVE to when they will do the same and take every opitunity to get OUT of working

as the goverment in victoria's slogan went:

"together we do better"


please do show me where "happier people are LESS likly to get sick, take days off and are more productive." it may make sense, but that's not always the case with real life. but what you're saying is that because a gay man or woman can get married, they'll be sooo much happier and in turn work soooo much harder that it would be cost effective to put their mate on their health plan? please tell me you have something to back this up.

Originally posted by mirage
in many marriages, there is a worker and a homemaker. the homemaker gets health benefits from the company the worker works at. currently, there is a health care crisis since there are a lot of wants and needs and not enough money to cover them all. if gays start to marry, their spouses get added into the mix. health care in this country will crumble. until the social services of this country is fixed, everything should stay on it's current path. there are far more pressing issues. in 20 years, 40% of our paychecks will go to the social security claims made today.

oh, flame me as much as you'd like, but all this was covered in my my economics 101 macroeconomics class.

You're a very special kind of idiot, aren't you?

First off, the health care "crisis" is a government issues. The health care benefits that you are talking about come from corporations, there is no problem there. Keep in mind, also that most women work today, and yet somehow there is no problem, even though the situation is already much as you describe. Also, homosexuals make up an extremely small portion of the population, a recent US census puts them as comprising only 2% of the population (though honestly that's actually the percentage of homosexuals who don't mind telling a government that oppresses and detests them that they are homosexuals, so who can say, really) the financial impact would be negligible.

In other words, the world isn't going to somehow collapse as if by magic if we legalize homosexual marriages.

mirage and his professor are right -- "always follow the money".

Homosexual marriage will entail a flow of money from the heterosexual community to the homosexual one. Since homosexual couples usually have more money than heterosexual ones anyway, being DINKS (dual incomes no kids) this seems anti-egalitarian to me.

How precisely will homosexual marriage mean money going from the heterosexuals to the homosexuals? Please spell it out.

Then of course, surely more money goes to the people with children, surely thats discrimination as well?

guthrie - one way is that company pension funds throw back into the fund the accumulations of non-married employees when they die. Since gays don't marry, their money being thrown back in results in a somewhat higher pension for everybody else. Once gays start marrying their suviving spouses will get their benefits once they die. Then there's the whole marriage penalty income tax thing (in the U.S.).

It's not a disputable fact. If you don't think it should matter, then just say so.

Any marriage that does not produce offspring is useless and should therefore be banned. Not just gay marriages here, notice....

Spoken like a true God-nut! Were you frothing at the mouth as you typed that?

Bwaaaa Haaaaa Haaaaaaa Haaaaaaaa

All religions must die.

BTW, when I quote someone, how do I get their name in there like other posts I see. Is it one of those buttons, or do I have to type it in? You can answer me by email if you know, or just post.

@filibuster:

You can type it in, or push the "edit" button at the end of a post instead of clicking "Reply." And use vB code to make it all nice and pretty :D

No, religions serve a definite purpose. Lack of tolerance may be an unfortunate byproduct, but give it time.

I think the most fair solution would be to create a separate kind of marriage in the legal code for gay couples. If marriage between two same-sex individuals is so different from that between a man and a woman, as xelius00 was arguing, then one should be able to distinguish between the two. Blindly assuming that the reasons for special legal code for married heterosexuals would also be relevant to homosexual marriages isn't thinking things through all the way.

Originally posted by Mystech
You're a very special kind of idiot, aren't you?

that's a rather harsh and personal jab there isn't it? i may not be as smart as you, but i'm entitled to my own opinion and these forums were created as a medium for us to discuss and debate them, intellectually. anyway, on to my response:

economics lesson (and a refresher for those of you who know everything)
you cannot separate the government from the people when you talk money. the consumption of private goods (C) , the investment by the indivuals (I) , government purchases (G), and net exports (net X) all go to the gross national product (GNP) of a nation. the gross national product is equal to the total of all income made by private individuals (Y). Y is made up of Disposable Income (DI), Gross Business Savings (GB), and Net Taxes (Tx-Tr). therefore, if corporations lose money, the government loses money and if you look at the semi circular flow

(C + I + G + (net)X = GDP)
<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>
(DI + GB + Tx - Tr = Y)

since only a handful of people understood what i meant, i've included a link to a university site that has a basic explanation of how economics works:
http://www.econ.umn.edu/~cswan/F02/Class/Sep3/slides/sld008.htm

I still stand by my earlier statement. 2% is a lot more than you'd think. if tax rate were lowered 2% business would pick up (which is why greenspan has dropped it recently just .25% to take care of this recession). if it were to be raised 2%, there'd be hell to pay. on top of that, that's only 2% that would admit to being homosexual BEFORE the reversal of these sodomy laws. Imagine what it would rise to if people were honest. unfortunately (for that statistic, especially) people are not inherently honest.


*** also, in the other gay marriage topic, someone brought up the point that homosexuals DO have the right to get married. just not to members of the same sex. there is no discrimination there. ***

Come on now, do you honestly believe that homosexual marriages are going to have any noticeable impact on the economy? The idea is just absurd. Slightly more married couples in the United States isn't going to break the bank.

From a moral standpoint, however I don't see that the financial issue even matters. If finally setting things straight, and abolishing discriminatory laws has any consequences, then we should endure them regardless. I for one am not a person to abandon principle for expedience.

As for the bit about homosexuals being allowed to marry members of the opposite sex, that's not exactly a homosexual marriage is it? It's not the issue we're talking about.

Originally posted by Mystech
1) Come on now, do you honestly believe that homosexual marriages are going to have any noticeable impact on the economy? The idea is just absurd. Slightly more married couples in the United States isn't going to break the bank.

2) From a moral standpoint, however I don't see that the financial issue even matters. If finally setting things straight, and abolishing discriminatory laws has any consequences, then we should endure them regardless. I for one am not a person to abandon principle for expedience.

3) As for the bit about homosexuals being allowed to marry members of the opposite sex, that's not exactly a homosexual marriage is it? It's not the issue we're talking about.

1) the figurative 'bank' you speak of is already broken.

2) if financial issues are not intertwined with moral laws, why isn't stealing legal? how is that NOT a financial issue?

3) you guys are saying it's not being fair to homosexuals that they can't marry. They can marry if they want, just not someone of the same sex. so, if the issue is fairness, then this is a moot point.

thx sankuro

Originally posted by mirage
*** also, in the other gay marriage topic, someone brought up the point that homosexuals DO have the right to get married. just not to members of the same sex. there is no discrimination there. ***
That's like me saying that black people DO have the right to get married, just not to members of the same race. There is no discrimination there.

Postoak

<one way is that company pension funds throw back into the fund the accumulations of non-married employees when they die. Since gays don't marry, their money being thrown back in results in a somewhat higher pension for everybody else. Once gays start marrying their suviving spouses will get their benefits once they die.>

So, gays shouldn't marry so YOU, a co-worker and not a loving spouse, can split the rest of THEIR pension?

I personally think everyone (else) should be castrated so my kids can eat more food and split the pensions that your kids would steal.

Wow, sounds stupid doesn't it.

People who argue against homosexual marriage generally don't put much more thought into it then 'eww, that is gross and wrong'. Economics are not the leading factor.

Postoak:
"guthrie - one way is that company pension funds throw back into the fund the accumulations of non-married employees when they die. Since gays don't marry, their money being thrown back in results in a somewhat higher pension for everybody else. Once gays start marrying their suviving spouses will get their benefits once they die. Then there's the whole marriage penalty income tax thing (in the U.S.)."

That sounds like unmarried couples and homosxual couples are subsidising otehr couples, which isnt fair is it?

"in many marriages, there is a worker and a homemaker. the homemaker gets health benefits from the company the worker works at. currently, there is a health care crisis since there are a lot of wants and needs and not enough money to cover them all. if gays start to marry, their spouses get added into the mix. health care in this country will crumble. until the social services of this country is fixed, everything should stay on it's current path. there are far more pressing issues. in 20 years, 40% of our paychecks will go to the social security claims made today. "

But why not equalise it for homosexuals? Your saying your already knackered, so will it make any more difference to allow homosexual marriages? then you can blame them as much as heterosexuals for marrying, or why not just blame the companies for being stupid enough to allow spouses on the health care plans.

Originally posted by mirage
1) the figurative 'bank' you speak of is already broken.

Last I checked the American economy, though in a bit of a downturn, was still chugging away with no signs of any catastrophic failure.

Originally posted by mirage
2) if financial issues are not intertwined with moral laws, why isn't stealing legal? how is that NOT a financial issue?

Finance and morals often do share ground, I never said anything to the contrary. In this instance, however, finance is not involved at all, and should not even be considered.

Originally posted by mirage
3) you guys are saying it's not being fair to homosexuals that they can't marry. They can marry if they want, just not someone of the same sex. so, if the issue is fairness, then this is a moot point.

So it's fair that your spacific needs are being catered to, whereas those of others are ignored? Yeah, a really fair system you've got going there, good job.