Should gay marriage be legal?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by theonlyguyever, Jul 2, 2003.

  1. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    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"
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. mirage Registered Member

    Messages:
    29

    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.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,938
    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.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. postoak Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    281
    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.
     
  8. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    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?
     
  9. postoak Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    281
    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.
     
  10. filibuster I only call names in bed Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    77
    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.
     
  11. sankuro Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    46
    @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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    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.
     
  12. mirage Registered Member

    Messages:
    29
    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. ***
     
  13. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,938
    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.
     
  14. mirage Registered Member

    Messages:
    29
    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.
     
  15. filibuster I only call names in bed Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    77
    thx sankuro
     
  16. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    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.
     
  17. Munchmausen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    71
    This is about pensions?

    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?
     
  18. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    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.
     
  19. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    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.
     
  20. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,938
    Last I checked the American economy, though in a bit of a downturn, was still chugging away with no signs of any catastrophic failure.

    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.

    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.
     

Share This Page