Nerdfighters

So Washington is going to be the 7th state to legalize gay marriage. I think that's cool, people should be able to do whatever makes them happy...
However, wasn't our whole government founded on a separation between The Church and The State? In my opinion marriage is a religious thing therefore The State should have no part in it, period. This should be completely up to the religion he/she belong to and if their church will allow it. It is of my opinion NO ONE should be able or allowed to FORCE their opinions onto others. So if that religion or church doesn't allow it, find a new one... 

So what I'm saying is why wasn't this allowed in the first place and who thought that they should overwrite the constitution? I mean I get that they think that they are helping our society or whatever, but as humans we are going to do what we want to do no matter what and don't we have a right to be happy?

Anyways do you think the government should be a part of this?

Tags: bisexual, church, gay, government, marriage, policy, state., the, transexual, transgender

Views: 652

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

In the past, marriage was an agreement to procreate. Today, in developed worlds, we do not have such demands on reproduction, and so, the structure and function of families change shape. Without the burden of childbearing, women can pursue careers and share the household equally with their husbands. Marriage becomes a personal contract to share the rights and responsibilities of a domestic partnership. Raising children is not always an expectation



That may be what you believe, but if that's the case, the state no longer has any interest, and the state is not obligated to act unless there is a human right at issue. Those things you list are all very nice privileges, but at the end of the day, that is what they are. Privileges. The state gives them out because it receives a return on doing so, it has absolutely NO moral compunction to do so. If you can demonstrate that the state would recieve a benefit, go ahead, but I have yet to see such an argument.

Today, marriage amongst heterosexuals is a practical, if not necessary, economic partnership between two competent, willing individuals who may or may not be in love and may or may not want to raise a family.


And why should the state sponsor such an agreement?

There is no reason that this contract should be restricted to only a man-woman partnership since procreation is not a requirement for spousal rights.


No, but it is the reason they are given out in the first place. Marriage isn't just a convenience. It was instituted as a foundation for families. That is why the state sponsers it. It has a vested interest. No such interest exists in homosexual marriages. Now the state may make a loss on some hetrosexual marriages, but it will make a loss on all homosexual ones.

Continuing to grant marriage to heterosexuals as a privilege, thereby making same-sex partners economically vulnerable, is a violation of a right.


Please show me a document anywhere that demonstrates that being "economically less vulnerable" is somehow a right that the government must sponsor?

Please show me a document anywhere that demonstrates that being "economically less vulnerable" is somehow a right that the government must sponsor?



I don't know why it wouldn't be in the states best interest to have less more economically vulnerable people. 

I don't know why it wouldn't be in the states best interest to have less more economically vulnerable people.



Because in order to make them less economically vunrable in the way here described, it would cost the state more, and they would not see a return on that money and thus they would be in a significently worse off position.

Because in order to make them less economically vunrable in the way here described, it would cost the state more, and they would not see a return on that money and thus they would be in a significently worse off position.



So what you are saying that its okay for the state to cover heterosexual citizens in this area, but gay and lesbian citizens should have to deal with it on their own? That is a double standard if I have ever seen one. There is no way to explain away the bias that some people have against lifestyles and cultures they don't like. 

It may not be a human rights violation but it sure as hell is a civil rights violation, on the same grounds as delegating that one race of people is equal to 3/5s of another, and that the sex of someone means they can be paid less, and have no right to vote. 

So what you are saying that its okay for the state to cover heterosexual citizens in this area, but gay and lesbian citizens should have to deal with it on their own? That is a double standard if I have ever seen one. There is no way to explain away the bias that some people have against lifestyles and cultures they don't like.


Had you read back through, you would see that I explained it fully. The state gives out these resources to hetrosexual married couples because it receives a return on the investment in the form of children. Homosexual couples cannot offer a simmilar return


It may not be a human rights violation but it sure as hell is a civil rights violation, on the same grounds as delegating that one race of people is equal to 3/5s of another, and that the sex of someone means they can be paid less, and have no right to vote.


How exactly is it a civil rights violation in comparison to any of these, if it based on the physical ability of the couple, rather than on something arbitrary like race or gender.

Had you read back through, you would see that I explained it fully. The state gives out these resources to hetrosexual married couples because it receives a return on the investment in the form of children. Homosexual couples cannot offer a simmilar return


So you are making the point that children and procreation are just forms of currency in a state run pay it forward campaign? I question now if you have ever heard of adoption, or surrogate parenting. Gay couples can raise a child just as well as a straight family can (example in the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMLZO-sObzQ

How exactly is it a civil rights violation in comparison to any of these, if it based on the physical ability of the couple, rather than on something arbitrary like race or gender.


The open and willful discrimination against a person regarding race, gender, religion,  nationality, or sexual orientation is encompassed as a civil rights violation.Stating that a person that is gay can not hold the same benefits as a straight person in the bond of marriage is again a double standard and is again a civil rights violation.  It is stating that one group can have and the other can not have because of one minor difference. 

So you are making the point that children and procreation are just forms of currency in a state run pay it forward campaign?


No, I did not say "just". I said that that is the main point of interest, in terms of economics, for the state.

I question now if you have ever heard of adoption, or surrogate parenting. Gay couples can raise a child just as well as a straight family can (example in the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMLZO-sObzQ)


I am not questioning the ability of a gay couple raising a child, I am questioning their ability to create one.

The open and willful discrimination against a person regarding race, gender, religion,  nationality, or sexual orientation is encompassed as a civil rights violation.



You are using the word "discrimination" too broadly. If a play does not offer the part of Cassio to a woman, is that discrimination? What if they do not offer the part of Othello to a white person? Is that discrimination?

There are plenty of examples where discrimination is entirely appropriate, based upon the capacities of the person, and the role for which they are being considered. Homosexual people ultimately do not fit the primary economic consideration of marriage, and thus they do not receive the benefits.

It is stating that one group can have and the other can not have because of one minor difference.


It is not a minor difference. It is a fundamental difference.

No, I did not say "just". I said that that is the main point of interest, in terms of economics, for the state.

So if I were a government and stated that all people with blond hair and blue eyes got special treatment over persons without those characteristic, because it is not economically sound, that wouldn't cause issue? That would be fair treatment to all members of the society that make up the nation under the government? I would think it would be easy to broaden the law to include everyone, or remove the it all together that way no one is left out. 

I am not questioning the ability of a gay couple raising a child, I am questioning their ability to create one.

In-vitro fertilization comes to mind on how a homosexual couple can have a child, yes, one parent would be represented in the genetic make up alone. However, with your argument on this you also would lump in person that are heterosexual that are unable to have children, or would you allow this for heterosexual couples that have adopt or have in vitro done? If you took the time to watch the link of Zach Wahls, you would have know that his mother had a sperm donor, and he is a full fledged sibling to his sister, both having the same mother and father. Gay couples can procreate, it just takes a little science.

You are using the word "discrimination" too broadly. If a play does not offer the part of Cassio to a woman, is that discrimination? What if they do not offer the part of Othello to a white person? Is that discrimination?

I am using the definition of the word properly. As for offering the part of Cassio to a woman over a man, that is at the directors choice due to it being a PLAY. Health benefits , death benefits and all around the right to marry are not lumped into the category of entertainment. Comparing gay marriage to casting a white as Othello is a joke, and a shameful ruse. That remark did not further your point and actually detracted from what you were trying to prove. 

So if I were a government and stated that all people with blond hair and blue eyes got special treatment over persons without those characteristic, because it is not economically sound, that wouldn't cause issue?



Since hair colour and eye colour have nothing to do with economic soundness, no. If however, there was a genuine economic reason, that would be different.

However, with your argument on this you also would lump in person that are heterosexual that are unable to have children, or would you allow this for heterosexual couples that have adopt or have in vitro done?


We've had this discussion before on a different thread. If the government started checking everyone to see if they are fertile, it would cost more money. A blanket hetrosexual marriage policy saves the government money in the long run.

Comparing gay marriage to casting a white as Othello is a joke, and a shameful ruse. That remark did not further your point and actually detracted from what you were trying to prove.



No, it didn't. It proved it exactly. We discriminate all the time, but there is reasonable discrimination and unreasonable discrimination. The difference is which is the case here. The issue is to do with the ability of the couple to have children.

In-vitro fertilization comes to mind on how a homosexual couple can have a child,



That requires someone from outside. A marriage is more economically effective as it requires no outside assistance.

Since hair colour and eye colour have nothing to do with economic soundness, no. If however, there was a genuine economic reason, that would be different.


Nor does sexual orientation, so I don't see why you keep bringing up the economic reasons behind not giving the same options to homosexual couples as straight couples. 

We've had this discussion before on a different thread. If the government started checking everyone to see if they are fertile, it would cost more money. A blanket hetrosexual marriage policy saves the government money in the long run.


The only thing that this policy would say is the face of a representative hoping to keep office by pandering to the religious bigots that seem to have the louder voice, and yet are becoming the minority.

That requires someone from outside. A marriage is more economically effective as it requires no outside assistance.


The should we lump single mothers that marry a third party, into this as well?  I don't see why you keep hounding the economic ramifications of this, and completely cast the fertility and adoption side of this as a completely different beast. It is like you are saying that your point is the only thing that matters and other peoples opinions and points are moot and not worth addressing. 

Lastly, I live in Iowa, a state that legalized gay marriage. If you feel that it will not help the economy, maybe you should research the data before stating that it won't. 

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/gay-marriage-has-boost...

Just adding another note here. The population of Iowa is approximately 3,000,000. The revenue in taxes alone is next to 900,000 from gay marriage. For a low population state such as mine, that is enough to justify all rights and amenities be given to homosexual couples and straight couples equally.

Nor does sexual orientation, so I don't see why you keep bringing up the economic reasons behind not giving the same options to homosexual couples as straight couples.


As I said before, the main economic benefit the state recieves from marriage is the creation of children. Hence, they are prepared to put resources into hetrosexual marriages. Homosexual marriages are not able to produce children. Ever. They may be able to look after them, but that isn't the same thing at all.


The should we lump single mothers that marry a third party, into this as well? 


Single mothers recieve child and other related benefits. If they re-marry, they receive other benefits.

Lastly, I live in Iowa, a state that legalized gay marriage. If you feel that it will not help the economy, maybe you should research the data before stating that it won't.



These are initial boosts, as a result of the inital change. Long term, it is a cost, because the state is giving out the benefits of marriage without receiving any of the normal returns. Naturally there will be some inital boosts around change. The kinds of economic patterns to which I am referring are long term ones.

Try not to attack the others.

RSS

© 2014   Created by Hank Green.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service