• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:363]accepting gay as normal

Status
Not open for further replies.
dixon01767 said:
Your just restating what the discrimination is. What justification does the government have to deny those who choose not to marry the 1000s of benefits of marriage?
Click to expand...
The same as for recognizing any familial relationships that provide for protections, benefits, etc. Legal kinship is recognized by law. Choosing a partner to mutually agree to support each other, to provide for each other and even provide for children that may come along, benefits society a lot. There are health benefits, economic benefits, social responsibility benefits.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/the-health-advantages-of-marriage-2016113010667

Marriage and men's health - Harvard Health

Why Marriage Is Good For You | The Value of Marriage | Marriage Facts




Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
dixon01767 said:
Closely related couples are excluded because they might procreate....even though marriage is claimed to have nothing to do with procreation.
Click to expand...
They are generally only excluded if those relationships are illegal themselves.

Additionally, many of the same benefits of legal spouse comes from being legal siblings or parent/child to another.

One major reason for laws preventing 1st Tier relatives from having relations, even as adults, is undue influence, just as important as potential for children having major medical issues. The same is true for why relations are not allowed between aunts & uncles/nieces & nephews, grandparents and grandchildren. Cousins and further out should absolutely be allowed to get married, have relationships because the potential for either undue influence or birth defects of children are both small. I have no issue fighting for cousins to get married.

Are you unaware that siblings and parents/children are already considered legal kin?

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
dixon01767 said:
The statistics show that single mothers are the most common alternative. Birth of a child only obligates two people in the world, the woman who gave birth and the man that caused her to do so. Presumed to be the husband if she is married. Without them the child has only the hope that someone else will voluntarily assume those responsibilities. Frequently no one does so.



Like the single mother and grandmother down the street, joined together for over a decade since their father died to provide and care for the children. In fact a single mother and grandparent is one of those most common alternatives to single mothers. Grandmother has adopted the children, they own their home in a joint tenancy. Have complimentary wills if one of them were to die. But government in all 50 states prevents them from marrying because they might procreate with detrimental genetic effects...…. even though marriage now has nothing to do with procreation.
Click to expand...

You keep repeating the failed statement that the birth of a child obligated the bio parents. It doesnt.

And who cares about statistics. Statistics show that far more opposite sex couples (in pure numbers) who are married will not raise children, especially not children which are biologically both of theirs.

There is not just procreation that is of concern. That is a failed argument. That mother and her mother already have a legally recognized relationship. There is no evidence that making them also spouses benefits them, the child, nor society.

And grandma cannot adopt her grandchild unless mom gives up full parental rights. There is no benefit to the child of such an arrangement.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
vegas giants said:
Then let's change that. Fine with me.

See...working together we can solve anything
Click to expand...

That would be the case if equality was the goal. If they just let any two consenting adults to marry it wouldn't be as effective at helping the gays feel better about their homosexuality.
 
roguenuke said:
The same as for recognizing any familial relationships that provide for protections, benefits, etc. Legal kinship is recognized by law. Choosing a partner to mutually agree to support each other, to provide for each other and even provide for children that may come along, benefits society a lot. There are health benefits, economic benefits, social responsibility benefits.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/the-health-advantages-of-marriage-2016113010667

Marriage and men's health - Harvard Health

Why Marriage Is Good For You | The Value of Marriage | Marriage Facts




Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Im fully aware of the benefits. I was looking for justification in denying them to the unmarried.
 
dixon01767 said:
That would be the case if equality was the goal. If they just let any two consenting adults to marry it wouldn't be as effective at helping the gays feel better about their homosexuality.
Click to expand...

Just fill out the paperwork. It's not discrimination if you are too lazy to fill out the paperwork

By the way....did you get married so you can feel better as about your heterosexuality?
 
roguenuke said:
They are generally only excluded if those relationships are illegal themselves.
Click to expand...

Because its illegal isn't justification. Some states made interracial marriages illegal. The Loving couple in the Loving v Skinner case that made laws against interracial marriage unconstitutional, weren't charged for getting married. They were charged with the crime of a man and woman cohabitating in the same home without a valid marriage. Because that was illegal.
 
dixon01767 said:
Because its illegal isn't justification. Some states made interracial marriages illegal. The Loving couple in the Loving v Skinner case that made laws against interracial marriage unconstitutional, weren't charged for getting married. They were charged with the crime of a man and woman cohabitating in the same home without a valid marriage. Because that was illegal.
Click to expand...

And a court decision changed that, as did a court decision earlier this millennium changed laws that made same sex relations illegal. If you get either support for to change the laws or a court decision to do so, you can have those marriages legal (in fact such a court ruling specifically in relation to cousins would allow for them to de facto marry because their marriages would have to be recognized from the 25+ states that allow first cousins to marry).

And there were laws against interracial marriage. Whether in VA or not. But cohabiting laws have since been ruled unenforceable in the view of most legal scholars.

And you seriously have issues addressing full points, pretending they werent posted, you werent countered.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
dixon01767 said:
Im fully aware of the benefits. I was looking for justification in denying them to the unmarried.
Click to expand...
Because being married itself provides those benefits, which you obviously did not look at because those arent legal or financial, government benefits.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
roguenuke said:
. I have no issue fighting for cousins to get married.

Are you unaware that siblings and parents/children are already considered legal kin?

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

And how about the two elderly widowed sisters sharing a home for the last 3 decades? Yes they are next of kin AND YES they are denied the 1000s of tax breaks and governmental entitlements of marriage. Or the two elderly widowed platonic friends who have lived together for decades but don't believe a marriage between them is appropriate. What justification for denying them their benefits? What is it about two people rubbing genitals that could possibly warrant such purposeful discrimination?
 
dixon01767 said:
And how about the two elderly widowed sisters sharing a home for the last 3 decades? Yes they are next of kin AND YES they are denied the 1000s of tax breaks and governmental entitlements of marriage. Or the two elderly widowed platonic friends who have lived together for decades but don't believe a marriage between them is appropriate. What justification for denying them their benefits? What is it about two people rubbing genitals that could possibly warrant such purposeful discrimination?
Click to expand...

Let them file the paperwork. What is stopping them?
 
dixon01767 said:
And how about the two elderly widowed sisters sharing a home for the last 3 decades? Yes they are next of kin AND YES they are denied the 1000s of tax breaks and governmental entitlements of marriage. Or the two elderly widowed platonic friends who have lived together for decades but don't believe a marriage between them is appropriate. What justification for denying them their benefits? What is it about two people rubbing genitals that could possibly warrant such purposeful discrimination?
Click to expand...
They are already legal kin. They can already make legal decisions for each other with little effort. I have no sympathy for these ridiculous one off situations you are attempting.

Are you against marriage completely? If so, fine. Be against marriage. Others dont agree. But this in no way supports that only opposite sex couples should be allowed to marry. What about a brother and sister living together, helping each other, even raising kids together after a divorce? Neither can have kids now though.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
roguenuke said:
Because being married itself provides those benefits...….,
Click to expand...

Yes Im fully aware being married provides those benefits. I was looking for the justification for denying them to the unmarried. What governmental purpose is served, that wouldn't equally be served in the case of two elderly sisters or two elderly platonic friends. Traditional marriages justification was that encouraging platonic friends or closely related couples to marry doesn't reduce the number of single women on their own with absent or unknown fathers. Encouraging or requiring heterosexual couples to marry does so. Whats the justification under this new model of marriage?
 
dixon01767 said:
Yes Im fully aware being married provides those benefits. I was looking for the justification for denying them to the unmarried. What governmental purpose is served, that wouldn't equally be served in the case of two elderly sisters or two elderly platonic friends. Traditional marriages justification was that encouraging platonic friends or closely related couples to marry doesn't reduce the number of single women on their own with absent or unknown fathers. Encouraging or requiring heterosexual couples to marry does so. Whats the justification under this new model of marriage?
Click to expand...

Two elderly platonic friends can legally marry. Do you think they have a test for love when you marry?

You are wrong. Single women with children can legally marry now and no reduction in fatherless children. Allowing same sex couples to marry actually means though that there could be an increase in married parent households, which is better for children.

You still fail to recognize that same sex marriage increases the number of married parents and in no way reduces that number. And opposite sex couples do not need to have children to get married.

Heterosexuals are not required to marry, even with children. And that isnt likely to change.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
roguenuke said:
They are already legal kin. They can already make legal decisions for each other with little effort.
Click to expand...

Any two people can do that. Not sure of the relevance to the 1000s of governmental entitlements and tax breaks available to the married, denied to the unmarried.

roguenuke said:
I have no sympathy for these ridiculous one off situations you are attempting.

Are you against marriage completely? If so, fine. Be against marriage. Others dont agree. But this in no way supports that only opposite sex couples should be allowed to marry.
Click to expand...

Nobody here is making that argument. A strawman to avoid the actual topic regarding those who are still excluded.

roguenuke said:
What about a brother and sister living together, helping each other, even raising kids together after a divorce? Neither can have kids now though.
Click to expand...

Yes, them to. On what basis can you possibly justify such discrimination.

ANY discrimination in the law at a minimum MUST serve some legitimate purpose and the classification used to discriminate must be rationally related to serving that purpose. Discrimination against the unmarried, what governmental interest is served in the case of the married that wouldn't be served in the case of the unmarried in the same situation. Or for those still excluded from marriage, you have to have SOME governmental interest hat is served.
 
dixon01767 said:
Any two people can do that. Not sure of the relevance to the 1000s of governmental entitlements and tax breaks available to the married, denied to the unmarried.



Nobody here is making that argument. A strawman to avoid the actual topic regarding those who are still excluded.



Yes, them to. On what basis can you possibly justify such discrimination.

ANY discrimination in the law at a minimum MUST serve some legitimate purpose and the classification used to discriminate must be rationally related to serving that purpose. Discrimination against the unmarried, what governmental interest is served in the case of the married that wouldn't be served in the case of the unmarried in the same situation. Or for those still excluded from marriage, you have to have SOME governmental interest hat is served.
Click to expand...

It is not discrimination if people refuse to fill out the paperwork
 
roguenuke said:
Two elderly platonic friends can legally marry. Do you think they have a test for love when you marry?
Click to expand...

Yes Im fully aware they can marry. Im looking for the justification in discriminating against them because they choose not to marry.

roguenuke said:
You are wrong. Single women with children can legally marry now and no reduction in fatherless children.
Click to expand...

You will need to point out what I am "wrong" about . We are all aware that single mothers can get married. No one claimed they couldn't. And marrying a single mother creates no obligation on the other spouse regarding the children.
 
dixon01767 said:
Yes Im fully aware they can marry. Im looking for the justification in discriminating against them because they choose not to marry.



You will need to point out what I am "wrong" about . We are all aware that single mothers can get married. No one claimed they couldn't. And marrying a single mother creates no obligation on the other spouse regarding the children.
Click to expand...

There are many benefits the government provides...but you cant get many of them without filling out the paperwork


Are people who refuse to register to vote being discriminated against?
 
dixon01767 said:
Yes Im fully aware they can marry. Im looking for the justification in discriminating against them because they choose not to marry.



You will need to point out what I am "wrong" about . We are all aware that single mothers can get married. No one claimed they couldn't.
Click to expand...

The same reason when anyone chooses not to do something that could benefit them, it is their choice not to participate in what is offered. Perhaps for them, the cost is not worth the benefits. So be it.

If they can marry, then limiting marriage to just opposite sex couples does not benefit them nor has it been shown to encourage them to marry. You have not shown any reason why marriage should be limited to only opposite sex couples. And the SCOTUS seems to agree.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
ArtemisBarca said:
No I am not..

I just don’t think the propaganda victory for conservatives, “covered the spread” on the “upgrade” from civil unions to marriage..

The legality side actually mattered, insisting states expand the definition of marriage is a social/emotional/propaganda/moral victory.. I’m not Sure which is fairly applied as all could be considered positive , negative or neutral.. I mean them in the neutral sense.


I am not religious.. for me marriage and civil unions would be a actually be morally and legally equivalent, rather than me just saying that , then whispering slurs under my breath..


I think changing the definitions of long standing words is a mistake guaranteed to be easily propagandized into over reach...


Sometimes the moral victory is not worth the functional price paid...

I could be totally wrong, god knows there is no way to know, but I bet if we had gone Civil Unions or some other title people decided on as a descriptive term. The anti-gay marriage movement loses 15% of its donations..



CONCLUSION) conservatives are so easily propagandized that ANY “low hanging fruit” concerning government/liberal overreach will get beaten like a dead horse..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
We change definitions of longstanding words ALL THE TIME like since we even started words so that canard can be safely discarded.
 
dixon01767 said:
That would be the case if equality was the goal. If they just let any two consenting adults to marry it wouldn't be as effective at helping the gays feel better about their homosexuality.
Click to expand...

Why is the right wing not fighting for equality and only wants to make straights feel better about their homosexuality
 
bomberfox said:
We change definitions of longstanding words ALL THE TIME like since we even started words so that canard can be safely discarded.
Click to expand...

Like what??

I am not saying long standing definitions have not been altered, but none jump to mind..

Meaning that it is rare enough to stand out.

By definition conservatives hate change.. So the less you can change while still getting the fundamentals done, the better..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
vegas giants said:
Why is the right wing not fighting for equality and only wants to make straights feel better about their homosexuality
Click to expand...

Because the peasants of the right wing are always propagandized with nonsense..

By definition the conservatives are protecting the status quo... aka the establishment/old school power base/aristocracy/the upper class..

Well what is in the best interest of the aristocracy is rarely in the best interest of the peasants that support them..


So how do you get people to support you against our own interest???

Propaganda... you create fictional bad guys to unite around, vast conspiracy theories that must be stopped and such


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ArtemisBarca said:
Because the peasants of the right wing are always propagandized with nonsense..

By definition the conservatives are protecting the status quo... aka the establishment/old school power base/aristocracy/the upper class..

Well what is in the best interest of the aristocracy is rarely in the best interest of the peasants that support them..


So how do you get people to support you against our own interest???

Propaganda... you create fictional bad guys to unite around, vast conspiracy theories that must be stopped and such


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

This belongs in the Conspiracy Forum...
 
ArtemisBarca said:
Like what??

I am not saying long standing definitions have not been altered, but none jump to mind..

Meaning that it is rare enough to stand out.

By definition conservatives hate change.. So the less you can change while still getting the fundamentals done, the better..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Like, hot, cold, chill, heavy, ....

20 words that once meant something very different |

And some more (although some are repeated)

11 Words With Meanings That Have Changed Drastically Over Time | Mental Floss

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom