How many times does it need to be said that the government doesn’t need to do anything for gays to have whatever relationship they want between themselves?
You are framing a false argument by making it “Let the government decide that gays can’t get married and then…”
There is no decision needing to be made by government on this matter.
Instead, “gay marriage” advocates want government to make a NEW decision that other people must be forced, if they have agreed to provide something to those having a given relationship that all parties understood and any gay parties who agreed to it understood, to now give these benefits to those that the agreement never intended.
Really, why can’t we all just do anything we want otherwise it’s discrimination according to you.
Think about it.
[/quote]
I thought about it and that is how I see it, yes, because it is not up to you me or anyone else to tell people how to live their lives.
Not only because it is immoral and expensive but also because we cannot know what works for someone else.
In the case of children I am willing to make an exception because they are stupid by default.
[/quote]
Here’s where that entire libertarian ideal breaks down my friend. I too do not want to take freedom away from anyone, but I realize that if we didn’t have a sound legal structure society would soon break down.
If you look closely at why we’ve had such a civil society you’ll quickly see it’s because of a few main things.
Family structure.
Reasonable laws allowing certain things while disallowing others.
An economic system that while not entirely fair seems to work.
There are other things as well, but over all anything that changes any of the above three things could very well damage our future and have untold of deleterious consequences. Surely other societies and cultures have proven this.
[/quote]
Which ones where personal and political freedom and property rights were most important did they have sever consequences?
If someone drives over your front yard, I presume you mean they trash your lawn with their tires, would break the second principle. They did not respect your property rights.
Someone’s definition of torture is another person’s definition of humane religious sacrifice. Why would someone be in danger of walking the streets at 1:00 in the afternoon? Untold horrors, what would these be?
The marriage thing is bogus, are you trying to save everyone’s soul? What is wrong with three women marrying one man? I’m not sure where this idea where we have to legislate morality when it does not hurt anyone else. Do you think hell is going to break out if we let people do as they wish? However, the reason behind this thread or flagging reason is that these laws are not about homosexuals being married, they are already getting married. Now, they want to force people to give them benefits that were not discussed when they were hired by their employers.
And when he hurts someone he will be thrown into prison for hurting someone (principle 1 and 2). You can’t punish someone for something they have not done, that is ludacris.
How does he affect the spouse of the man? What if she allows it, what if he is an Orthodox Jew and his marriage vows or relationship are not based on him only having sex with her and yet he is arrested because he chooses to pay for companionship on a business trip. So, we should do what about that, how are we supposed to legislate that parents give their kids goals, self-respect? And what happened to people taking care of themselves, putting an age limit on things just makes people more dependant. Awesome.
They still have domestic partnerships in those states, however the forced benefits are not given to them.
Sorry but there has been polygamy (allowed) in the United States up until about 60-70 years ago.
But I do like libertarian ideas, as long as they remain just ideas.[/quote]
I do agree that this bill is NOT just about marriage and that it is a play for money. I do not agree with some of it, but I do think that 2 gay people married should get the same benefits that 2 straight people married should get. If you don’t want to pay those benefits to a gay couple, then don’t pay straight married couples those benefits either. It’s hypocritical otherwise IMO.[/quote]
No, it can be a simple matter of believing a return is coming to me (as a hypothetical employer) for the extra benefits in one type of case and I do well by paying it, and believing no return is coming to me in another type of case.
If I have say 100 men in my company married to women and 100 “married” to other men, and 100 single men, I probably will be correct in predicting that a higher percentage of the 100 men married to women will be ones that will go above and beyond for the company when need be than will be the case for the 200 of other types of men. You can’t know for any single case, but statistically this is true.
Ditto for prospective hires.
If I need to pay more for the married men because other companies do so (for their own self-interest) and I get this benefit, but I don’t expect this benefit from men not married to women, then I am being harmed by being forced to pay them that as well just because YOU and some others think it’s “fair.”
Just as a thought experiment: did you really think employers offered this extra benefit for persons fitting into the same job classification (where a company has some uniformity in the pay structure) out of sheer niceness? No: it is for commercial reasons that they believe make sense for them. They certainly don’t have to offer the benefit to anyone, except perhaps – I am not sure – in some states, and perhaps will have to under Pelosi/Reidcare.
After all, the Constitution empowers the Federal Government to forbid a man from hiring another man unless he provides health insurance meeting government specs for that man’s family, don’cha know.[/quote]
Don’t you think that that is a bit prejudicial? You are saying that simply being married (man/woman) makes an employee work harder. Maybe that is the case on average, but in all of my experiences that was not the case. It all came down to the individual’s work ethic and abilities, not their marital status. I’m not saying you are wrong, for I have not worked with a lot more people than I have worked with :). I do believe that it is not the place of the government to meddle in this, it is the responsibility of the company’s owner. If a person believes that it is unfair they can go to court to PROVE that it was unfair.[/quote]
Well then if one out of a thousand works as hard as the average married man, why in the hell should all of them get it. That makes no sense. Maybe that one person can get it then, no one else.
I do agree that this bill is NOT just about marriage and that it is a play for money. I do not agree with some of it, but I do think that 2 gay people married should get the same benefits that 2 straight people married should get. If you don’t want to pay those benefits to a gay couple, then don’t pay straight married couples those benefits either. It’s hypocritical otherwise IMO.[/quote]
No, it can be a simple matter of believing a return is coming to me (as a hypothetical employer) for the extra benefits in one type of case and I do well by paying it, and believing no return is coming to me in another type of case.
If I have say 100 men in my company married to women and 100 “married” to other men, and 100 single men, I probably will be correct in predicting that a higher percentage of the 100 men married to women will be ones that will go above and beyond for the company when need be than will be the case for the 200 of other types of men. You can’t know for any single case, but statistically this is true.
Ditto for prospective hires.
If I need to pay more for the married men because other companies do so (for their own self-interest) and I get this benefit, but I don’t expect this benefit from men not married to women, then I am being harmed by being forced to pay them that as well just because YOU and some others think it’s “fair.”
Just as a thought experiment: did you really think employers offered this extra benefit for persons fitting into the same job classification (where a company has some uniformity in the pay structure) out of sheer niceness? No: it is for commercial reasons that they believe make sense for them. They certainly don’t have to offer the benefit to anyone, except perhaps – I am not sure – in some states, and perhaps will have to under Pelosi/Reidcare.
After all, the Constitution empowers the Federal Government to forbid a man from hiring another man unless he provides health insurance meeting government specs for that man’s family, don’cha know.[/quote]
Don’t you think that that is a bit prejudicial? You are saying that simply being married (man/woman) makes an employee work harder. Maybe that is the case on average, but in all of my experiences that was not the case. It all came down to the individual’s work ethic and abilities, not their marital status. I’m not saying you are wrong, for I have not worked with a lot more people than I have worked with :). I do believe that it is not the place of the government to meddle in this, it is the responsibility of the company’s owner. If a person believes that it is unfair they can go to court to PROVE that it was unfair.[/quote]
Well then if one out of a thousand works as hard as the average married man, why in the hell should all of them get it. That makes no sense. Maybe that one person can get it then, no one else.[/quote]
I’m not saying that a few gay people work as hard as straight people. I’m saying that there are both gay and straight people that work hard. I know a LOT of straight married men that are so lazy that I wouldn’t hire them to fetch my mail from my mailbox. I personally believe that sexual preference doesn’t effect work performance. It’s about upbringing and if the job is important to you.