A question to supporters of Gay Marriage

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

The following is a question to supporters of gay marriage, but first some context. In recent discussions about gay marriage, one phrase often used by the supporters has been "love is love". The idea being that marriage is (to supporters of gay marriage) primarily a decoration of love between two people, and the legal recognition of that fact.

My question therefore, in light of that fact, is as following:

If the only criteria for legal recognition of marriage is to do with romantic love, upon what basis would the state be able to prohibit legal recognition of polygamy or incestuous marriage?

In either of those two cases, I am sure that the participants involved would state that they have genuine romantic feelings. Is there any basis for preventing these people from also having their marriage recognised?

[Josh Weeden]

Urrrggghhhhhh one of the main reasons for gay "marriage" rather than cilvil partnership is to establish gay relationships as more secure and therefore feasible in terms of adoption..therefore fewer children in orphanages and a greater viability to the state as additional children are raised without state expense

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Urrrggghhhhhh one of the main reasons for gay "marriage" rather than cilvil partnership is to establish gay relationships as more secure and therefore feasible in terms of adoption..therefore fewer children in orphanages and a greater viability to the state as additional children are raised without state expense

 

Why are they more secure? What about government recognition makes them necessarily more stable than other couples. If it is a case that adoption agencies don't view them as stable, then that is something for the adoption agencies to change, rather than the government using resources to convince the adoption agencies.

[Josh Weeden]

Also...thats a great argument...until you think about it for more than ten seconds....if were saying the government doesn't need any additional expense...people over the age of 80...why bother letting them have access to NHS treatment..for that matter people with terminal diseases....whats more why educate everyone to the same level as a standard when we still need the proletariat?....also lets pull all funding to the arts as it is a drain on government resources with little net profit. Also that large sporting event which has currently involved billions of pounds of redevelopment....yeah scrap it. (a little too much sarcasm??)

Your argument is flawed as governments have to deal with people as well as statistics..in your argument you do not consider the human factor thus never enabling you to fully understand what you are arguing about. Marriage isnt just tax breaks or legal advantages it holds an emotional meaning for a lot of people however it is performed and denying people this right for any reason is plain wrong

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Also...thats a great argument...until you think about it for more than ten seconds....if were saying the government doesn't need any additional expense...people over the age of 80...why bother letting them have access to NHS treatment.

Because it keeps those people alive. There are things that the government has a responsability to provide. The whole point of the debate is that there is no responsibility on the part of the government to provide recognition for gay marriage.

 

Your argument is flawed as governments have to deal with people as well as statistics..in your argument you do not consider the human factor thus never enabling you to fully understand what you are arguing about. Marriage isnt just tax breaks or legal advantages it holds an emotional meaning for a lot of people however it is performed and denying people this right for any reason is plain wrong

 

I am aware that it holds emotional meaning. If you recall, that was the thrust of my original argument. IE If you hold to the view that is the emotional argument, then you have to support lots of other people's emotional arguments (Side note - this is why your 80 yr old/terminally ill examples fail. Those are talking about physical, rather than emotional needs). To one extent or another, the government is required to be selective.

[Nelson]

Side note - this is why your 80 yr old/terminally ill examples fail. Those are talking about physical, rather than emotional needs.

Wrong. The reason terminal, and old people are being over-treated is because the families don't want them to die, and the doctors don't bring up the topic of death because they feel pressured by the families and sometimes the patients themselves. Extension of life has become an ideal as opposed to having a reasonable quality of life, including the end thereof. Over-treating people because of this ideal of life extension costs everyone tons of money because of the emotional needs of a number of people.

You have cleverly tried to shift the discussion from the benefit of the state to personal needs, and you have failed.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Wrong. The reason terminal, and old people are being over-treated is because the families don't want them to die

 

No, the reasoning is that they have a right to life, which means they have a right to medical care that will prolong their life.

[Nelson]

No, the reasoning is that they have a right to life, which means they have a right to medical care that will prolong their life.

And this right to life obviously means that every available treatment should be used or tried to have someone live as long as possible without regard for the state they're in, right? No. At some points treatments are not worth it any more and people have problems accepting that.

[Lori S.]

Polygamous cultures have existed for centuries. I doubt very much that these questions are unresolvable, otherwise monogamous marriage would be more universal. All that would be required is simply a more complex legal contract.

While marriage equality requires exactly one thing: allowing same-sex couples to enter into the marriage contract we already have.

You yourself admit here that polygamous marriage would mean rewriting the marriage contract, and making it more complex.  And that is why polygamy is a different issue than same-sex marriage.

[Latch33570]

Love is only part of marriage it is just not the only thing. Throu8ghout the years I have fallen in love with my wife several times over. As for polygamy as long as everyone is informed and consent why not. It is normal. Incest isn't accepted by society as a whole, neither is polygamy. Homosexuality is natural and accepted. That is why I don't understand your problem with it. I am just curious VERTY why dou you have a problem with it?

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

And this right to life obviously means that every available treatment should be used or tried to have someone live as long as possible without regard for the state they're in, right? No. At some points treatments are not worth it any more and people have problems accepting that.

At some point, in so far as they physically cannot do them, but the state does all that it physically can for those people, because it is their right. The NHS's job is to provide that care. The state has no such responsibility to happiness in the same way regarding homosexual marriage.

[Nelson]

At some point, in so far as they physically cannot do them, but the state does all that it physically can for those people, because it is their right.

So an 85 year old demented male should get a heart transplant for the sole reason that it is physically possible? I though you were all about benefit for the state and such, and from that perspective it would be much more reasonable to give that heart to a younger, healthier person who could give a return on that investment. It being physically possible is exactly the stupid reason why people are demanding too much treatment of doctors and have little to no regard any more for the quality of life, let alone the costs of such treatment. People have to stop thinking in terms of what is physically / medically possible and start thinking of what is physically / medically desirable.

The state has no such responsibility to happiness in the same way regarding homosexual marriage.

And yet the state has a responsibility to the happiness of families of terminal and/or old people because obviously they should live as long as possible. Let's just forget for a moment that it costs tons and tons of money and that the only return is a few people's happiness.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

So an 85 year old demented male should get a heart transplant for the sole reason that it is physically possible?

No, because it wouldn't be possible. There is only a finite number of hearts, and there are other people higher up the list.

And yet the state has a responsibility to the happiness of families of terminal and/or old people because obviously they should live as long as possible. Let's just forget for a moment that it costs tons and tons of money and that the only return is a few people's happiness.

 

The state has a responsibility to everyone's healthcare. It does not have a responsibility to everyone's "happiness".