Quote:
Originally Posted by Salami
This is what I'd like hip hop bunny hop to address if he wants to take issues with what we're saying. I think there are some clear-cut issues here I shall raise again:
(1). WHY should anyone be "stopped from marrying someone of their own gender"? I am asking for something a little more than Franco's retort that marriage is "traditionally" between a man and a woman, I'd like to hear a clear moral reason, and some form of justification as to why your objection is greater than people's right to love each other.
(2). This is the most important part: What the fuck gives anyone the right to direct how other people live their lives? How could anyone possibly think they are in any position to dictate who I want to marry or express my love for? It's MY life, and any kind of biases you have are completely irrelevant and should be kept to yourself.
<snip>
So, what I'd like from anyone arguing against is some form of address to these issues, which so far I've failed to find.
I know hip hop bunny hop is very good at finding links which may support his position, but I would like something a little more relevant than Tablet next time please, which Unknown Soldier, as a catholic, claimed was a poor source.
|
I'll encapsulate my argument in brief, as I've already addressed that point on this board several times, and I touched on it in this thread before Pepe entered the discussion.
Anyways, in regards to the point you labelled #1, same-sex couples are allowed to have private ceremonies and all that. There is no law preventing them from doing so. In the context of the USA, the arguments regarding homosexual marriage have to do with
state recognized marriage. So, there is nothing interfering with the ritual of marriage or their ability to love one another.
I, however, object to
state recognized marriage same sex marriage because:
Quote:
|
marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.
|
To which you may point out not all married couples have children, to which I'd say:
Quote:
|
A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage...would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate.... Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.
|
In regards to the point you labelled #2;
Quote:
|
Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage,
|
All of these quotes were pulled from this article, which is the same old "Secular Case Against Gay Marriage" which I've quoted far too many times on this board....
LINK to it here
Below is a quote from earlier pages in this thread from myself, which remains relevant, and should serve as a helpful jump to pre-Pepe discussion of the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hip hop bunny hop
...why offer anyone benefits for being married? Not being married doesn't harm anyone else, so why should those who are not married pay higher taxes, be burdened with unfavorable loan rates, unfavorable car insurance rates, etc.?
The arguments that justified these unfavorable conditions were primarily related to (1) increased reproductive rates of married couples, & (2) the improved outcomes of children from married couples. But do these arguments still make sense if you're going to extend marriage benefits to same sex couples?
|