User Tag List

View Poll Results: Gay marriage rights

Voters
170. You may not vote on this poll
  • Should be given

    158 92.94%
  • Should not be given

    9 5.29%
  • Could tolerate gay couples, but can't tolerate gay marriages

    9 5.29%
  • Can't tolerate gay marriages or couples

    3 1.76%
Multiple Choice Poll.
First 6789101858 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 591

  1. #71
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4

    Default

    I support gay marriage, but I'll try playing devil's advocate (ironically by siding with hardcore Christians). The definition of marriage is not just about peanuts - it involves the granting of a set of rights and privileges to a particular group of people (eg. favourable tax treatment). In other words, marriage is a subsidy. Generally speaking, governments should only subsidize activities and institutions that serve the public interest. In the case of marriage, governments favour marriage in order to foster an environment conducive to child-birth and child-rearing. Baby bonuses won't necessarily suffice, because it is better for kids be raised by two parents.

    Now, gay couples can have kids, or adopt them, but it is difficult for them to do so. Only about 25% of US gay couples have kids, far below the national average. And in some cases, those kids were born in heterosexual marriages, that predate the formation of a gay couple. As a result, gay marriage would mean subsidizing a large number of people, who are far less likely to further the objective of the subsidy. If unequal cannot be reconciled with notions of fairness and equity (or the constitution), the logical solution would be to get the government out of marriage altogether.

  2. #72
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eternaltriangle View Post
    I support gay marriage, but I'll try playing devil's advocate (ironically by siding with hardcore Christians). The definition of marriage is not just about peanuts - it involves the granting of a set of rights and privileges to a particular group of people (eg. favourable tax treatment). In other words, marriage is a subsidy. Generally speaking, governments should only subsidize activities and institutions that serve the public interest. In the case of marriage, governments favour marriage in order to foster an environment conducive to child-birth and child-rearing. Baby bonuses won't necessarily suffice, because it is better for kids be raised by two parents.

    Now, gay couples can have kids, or adopt them, but it is difficult for them to do so. Only about 25% of US gay couples have kids, far below the national average. And in some cases, those kids were born in heterosexual marriages, that predate the formation of a gay couple. As a result, gay marriage would mean subsidizing a large number of people, who are far less likely to further the objective of the subsidy. If unequal cannot be reconciled with notions of fairness and equity (or the constitution), the logical solution would be to get the government out of marriage altogether.
    Yes, this is perhaps the argument which the anti-gay marriage crowd believes to be their crowning jewel, since it's (for once) not immediately traceable to the usual religious nonsense that is, most of the time, summarily dismissed by the opposition as hateful and wrong. Unfortunately, their belief in the winning-ness of this argument is misplaced for the following reasons:

    1. The argument treats as self-evident the proposition that the government has an interest in marriage solely (or even mostly) for the purpose of facilitating procreation. This has yet to be adequately shown.

    2. As you mentioned, some gay couples have children and some straight couples do not (or cannot.) In fact, there are many more infertile straight marriages in the U.S. (2 million) than there are total estimated homosexual households (1.2 million.) Subtract the gay couples that do have children (33% of lesbian couples and 22% of gay male couples) and it's clear that the issue of wasted government "marriage subsidies" on gays is nothing but a farce.

    3. If the potential to procreate is to function as the principle upon which gays are excluded from marriage, then it must also be applied to non-child-bearing straight couples. Since that would be absurd, one can only assume that the procreation argument was designed singularly to exclude gays; which is post-hoc reasoning of the worst kind.

    4. If child-rearing is truly the state's primary interest in "subsidizing" marriage, then prohibiting gay marriage is counter-productive to that goal in many ways. For instance, divorced straight couples with children may be legally bound by the federal government to pay child-support. A gay couple that separates or dissolves a union, on the other hand, need only hop on over to another state that doesn't recognize the union. How is that helping these oh-so-valuable children that the government apparently wishes to nurture? Short of banning gays from raising children (which would be absurd), the obvious solution would be to simply allow gay marriage.

    Honestly, I still think that the slippery slope to pedophilia/bestiality/etc., is a superior argument to this one.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  3. #73
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4

    Default

    1. The argument treats as self-evident the proposition that the government has an interest in marriage solely (or even mostly) for the purpose of facilitating procreation. This has yet to be adequately shown.
    Its not just for promoting procreation. If you wanted to do that, you would just subsidize childbirth directly. The problem with just subsidizing childbirth is that it is better for babies to be raised in two-parent homes. The objective is procreation AND marriage jointly. Most of the other purposes of marriage (eg. hospital visitation rights, inheritance) can be accomplished through contracts.

    2. As you mentioned, some gay couples have children and some straight couples do not (or cannot.) In fact, there are many more infertile straight marriages in the U.S. (2 million) than there are total estimated homosexual households (1.2 million.) Subtract the gay couples that do have children (33% of lesbian couples and 22% of gay male couples) and it's clear that the issue of wasted government "marriage subsidies" on gays is nothing but a farce.
    Wrong metric. The choice before the government is: which groups to subsidize?Dollar for dollar, you are going to get more babies subsidizing those groups with a higher % likelihood of having kids. The raw amount of wasted subsidies for gay couples is only lower because they represent a very small percentage of the population. By that logic it would make sense to subsidize male Puerto Rican widows because - even though almost none would have babies, the amount of wasted subsidies would be small (because there are few widows).

    3. If the potential to procreate is to function as the principle upon which gays are excluded from marriage, then it must also be applied to non-child-bearing straight couples. Since that would be absurd, one can only assume that the procreation argument was designed singularly to exclude gays; which is post-hoc reasoning of the worst kind.
    Again, the goal is not just procreation, but procreation in a family setting. Infertility is administratively impossible to measure, and something of an uncertain thing anyway. What is more, by your numbers, it is not a significant problem for straight married couples. With 2 million infertile/59 million married couples = 3.3% of the population.

    4. If child-rearing is truly the state's primary interest in "subsidizing" marriage, then prohibiting gay marriage is counter-productive to that goal in many ways. For instance, divorced straight couples with children may be legally bound by the federal government to pay child-support. A gay couple that separates or dissolves a union, on the other hand, need only hop on over to another state that doesn't recognize the union. How is that helping these oh-so-valuable children that the government apparently wishes to nurture? Short of banning gays from raising children (which would be absurd), the obvious solution would be to simply allow gay marriage.
    This is untrue. A number of states have ruled that same-sex partners are legally bound to pay child support.
    http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/08/05/...child-support/
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4811333

    What is more, you presume that the only way to prevent gay parents from not paying child support is to legalize gay marriage. As the rulings in New York and California illustrate, that is not necessary.

    The core weakness of the procreation argument to me is the smallness of "subsidy". Even if people buy the premise of the argument, its not clear that they will care.

    Honestly, I still think that the slippery slope to pedophilia/bestiality/etc., is a superior argument to this one.
    The slippery slope argument is a terrible one. Pedophilia and bestiality are not comparable to gay marriage because they involve issues of consent. Minors can't consent legally, while animals can't biologically, so its an entirely different kettle of fish.

    Plural marriage is closer, but then the argument requires somebody to believe that plural marriage is wrong. I can't think of any legitimate arguments why it is, assuming it takes place between consenting adults. People typically associate plural marriages with female oppression (thinking about renegade mormon communities or muslims), but there is no reason it has to be. What is more, as renegade mormon communities show - de facto plural relationships happen anyway. Legalizing polygamy would give all members in such relationship legal recourse with which to defend their rights.

  4. #74
    Junior Member oxyjen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    INtP
    Posts
    19

    Default

    Just an FYI from a friendly lurker--after a similar clusterfuck of a thread (see here), I vowed that for every dumbass post, I'd donate $1 to One Iowa. That's a LGBT organization from my home state trying to protect its current gay marriage legality from people like Bob Vander Plaats. That set me back around 50 bucks.

    This thread's donations will go to HRC. But keep it in check, Lark, Speed, etc. I'm not made of money.

  5. #75
    Courage is immortality Valiant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    8w7 sx/so
    Socionics
    EIE
    Posts
    3,919

    Default

    Honestly... Sometimes I feel a bit like Don Quixote.
    Holding on to chivalry is something utterly lost to you lot.
    No matter what I say or do, you will not change your ways.
    Until media starts talking you into becoming conservatives...
    The people affected by Mob Mentality™ (yes, you) will be... "Liberal" until someone tells you what to do through suggestion over time.
    This thing is like a sine wave, and we'll probably be somewhere else entirely in thirty years or so.
    I think this is because a lot, even a majority of people, lack an inner compass.
    Or rather the combination of strong feeling and morals imprinted and learned through experience and feeling.
    They (you) do not see things for how they truly are, but are told what is what by your peers.
    Right now, among young people, this crap is not wrong...
    But there used to be a death sentence attached to it. While that is harsh, indeed, I am one of those who thinks, feels and knows, with my whole heart, that this is wrong.
    It is a twisted and sick thing that should be confined to the shadows and not see the light of day, like many other nasty sexual orientations (pedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia etc.).

    Now, this does not mean that I hate any or all gay people. I pity the poor bastards that they weren't born right in the head, or were made such by their environment.
    Not sure it can even be "cured", since that doesn't seem to help with any other sexual orientation, either. So I guess it must exist, but it does not mean that it is good.
    Many other unhealthy variations of behavior exist, as well. Some of them are punished while others have been commercialized and forced upon people by liberal media and immoral politicians.

    No, screw this. I hate thinking about it, because I feel like i'm trying to fight the tide with a willow switch. Or windmills...


    I voted: "Should not be given" and "Could tolerate gay couples(in secret, unofficially), but can't tolerate gay marriages(since it is neither normal or could ever be equal to the holy sanctity of marriage)".


    Mightier than the tread of marching armies is the power of an idea whose time has come

  6. #76
    Diabolical Kasper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Enneagram
    9w8 so/sx
    Posts
    11,544

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YourLocalJesus View Post
    But there used to be a death sentence attached to it. While that is harsh, indeed, I am one of those who thinks, feels and knows, with my whole heart, that this is wrong.
    It is a twisted and sick thing that should be confined to the shadows and not see the light of day, like many other nasty sexual orientations (pedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia etc.).

    Now, this does not mean that I hate any or all gay people. I pity the poor bastards that they weren't born right in the head, or were made such by their environment.
    Not sure it can even be "cured", since that doesn't seem to help with any other sexual orientation, either. So I guess it must exist, but it does not mean that it is good.
    And we pity you.

  7. #77
    Courage is immortality Valiant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    8w7 sx/so
    Socionics
    EIE
    Posts
    3,919

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kasper View Post
    And we pity you.
    I am certain that you do. It's not easy to accept that something that is part of yourself is somehow wrong.
    It's way easier giving in to it, so in this political climate (moral decadence) that happens a lot.
    History is abundant with the sine curve that I mentioned. Hell, the same thing is part of the whole that is responsible for the fall of all empires and everything great that ever existed.

    Mightier than the tread of marching armies is the power of an idea whose time has come

  8. #78
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YourLocalJesus View Post
    Honestly... Sometimes I feel a bit like Don Quixote.
    Holding on to chivalry is something utterly lost to you lot.
    No matter what I say or do, you will not change your ways.
    Until media starts talking you into becoming conservatives...
    The people affected by Mob Mentality™ (yes, you) will be... "Liberal" until someone tells you what to do through suggestion over time.
    This thing is like a sine wave, and we'll probably be somewhere else entirely in thirty years or so.
    I think this is because a lot, even a majority of people, lack an inner compass.
    Or rather the combination of strong feeling and morals imprinted and learned through experience and feeling.
    That's funny. I started out thinking homosexuality was morally wrong and harmful, and experience and feeling over the space of a few decades has taught me the opposite of what you believe. I guess experience and feeling is a lousy basis on which to base one's values, if it can result in such variable results.

    I also find your view as you express it above and as you typically have expressed it to be excessively fearful, pessimistic, and degrading to those who do not share your point of view. It's not much different than people I know making assumptions about my intellect and moral character for making the decisions I have in my life -- that I must have just been "brainwashed," or that I was "morally inferior," or "sick," or "deluded" by others -- rather than a person who has made the most moral, rational, sensible decisions she could have made, agonizing over the course of her life over what decisions to make, and having had to really swim against the current and sacrifice a lot of conveniences in order to make those decisions. There is very little respect for others and their moral capacity in the type of comments that you make on topics like this.

    The world must seem like a very scary place to you, with all these undesired changes in the social fabric, and with all these bad people you must feel yourself to be surrounded by. I'm surprised you bother to engage groups of people who you find so alien to the way you think and whose viewpoints feel so ill to you. I'm fine with you doing so; I just don't understand what you gain from it, since it doesn't seem to be a pleasant experience for you.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  9. #79
    Diabolical Kasper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Enneagram
    9w8 so/sx
    Posts
    11,544

    Default

    @oxyjen I believe YLJs posts call for a double donation penalty.

    Quote Originally Posted by YourLocalJesus View Post
    It's not easy to accept that something that is part of yourself is somehow wrong.
    It's way easier giving in to it, so in this political climate (moral decadence) that happens a lot.
    Your moral righteousness blinds you.

    No one has an issue with their sexual orientation until someone else tells them they should.

  10. #80
    Courage is immortality Valiant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    8w7 sx/so
    Socionics
    EIE
    Posts
    3,919

    Default

    Well, I feel someone has to stand up to this bullshit. If I do not do it, how the hell can I expect anyone else to rise up with me?
    I don't feel like I am getting any results at all, but at least I can inspire those who still cling to their ideals to hold on tight and not lose their faith in what is right.
    That said, you have no idea how many times I have thought about leaving this place and just quit.
    People "IRL" aren't as bad, for the most part. This has turned into a safe haven for the things that are wrong with today, though.
    However: where evil lurks I will be, fighting it in speech and writing. Until the day I die.

    Let's hope I die soon, eh? I bet you guys have an aching need of banning me because I disagree with you. Or perhaps I misjudge at least you, Jen.
    Now, let me clarify once again. I do not hate you. In fact I ****ing like you, Jennifer. I just don't agree, with a passion.

    Mightier than the tread of marching armies is the power of an idea whose time has come

Similar Threads

  1. Support for Same-Sex Marriage Climbs to New High
    By Totenkindly in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 299
    Last Post: 06-26-2011, 10:43 PM
  2. Question for those who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds:
    By Brendan in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 111
    Last Post: 05-05-2010, 09:32 PM
  3. Same-Sex Marriage
    By metaphours in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 08-04-2009, 07:52 AM
  4. Do you think same-sex marriage should be legal?
    By ez78705 in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 257
    Last Post: 05-22-2009, 05:02 PM
  5. Christianity Today Poll (same-sex marriages)
    By Totenkindly in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 09-14-2007, 08:53 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO