Why Do People Care About Gay Marriage?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
261

[quote]
lucasa wrote:
Reproduction. Heterosexual couples can reproduce without a third party. It’s funny that you don’t know this, almost like it’s convenient for you to look past it.

Makavali wrote:
People don’t need to be married to procreate. And what about heterosexual couples that adopt?[/quote]

It’s not a disqualifying factor - it gets to the question of why the government may wish to encourage the formation of heterosexual unions, which would not apply to homosexual unions (at least not without a lot of scientific help).

If the government wants to encourage procreation (which any government that has a welfare state does by default, because it needs to produce more workers to fund it), then it may wish to preference the type of union that, in the aggregate (as opposed to in any individual case, which would require invasive testing procedures), tends to lead to more procreation.

262

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

lucasa wrote:
Reproduction. Heterosexual couples can reproduce without a third party. It’s funny that you don’t know this, almost like it’s convenient for you to look past it.

Makavali wrote:
People don’t need to be married to procreate. And what about heterosexual couples that adopt?

It’s not a disqualifying factor - it gets to the question of why the government may wish to encourage the formation of heterosexual unions, which would not apply to homosexual unions (at least not without a lot of scientific help).

If the government wants to encourage procreation (which any government that has a welfare state does by default, because it needs to produce more workers to fund it), then it may wish to preference the type of union that, in the aggregate (as opposed to in any individual case, which would require invasive testing procedures), tends to lead to more procreation.[/quote]

So gay cannot marry because it would not bring us closer to our socialist paradise?

Well, if you put it that way…

263

No one is stopping them from marrying - in a private, as opposed to governmental classification, and holding themselves out as married - they’re just not getting the same tax benefits…

264

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

lucasa wrote:
Reproduction. Heterosexual couples can reproduce without a third party. It’s funny that you don’t know this, almost like it’s convenient for you to look past it.

Makavali wrote:
People don’t need to be married to procreate. And what about heterosexual couples that adopt?

BostonBarrister wrote:
It’s not a disqualifying factor - it gets to the question of why the government may wish to encourage the formation of heterosexual unions, which would not apply to homosexual unions (at least not without a lot of scientific help).

If the government wants to encourage procreation (which any government that has a welfare state does by default, because it needs to produce more workers to fund it), then it may wish to preference the type of union that, in the aggregate (as opposed to in any individual case, which would require invasive testing procedures), tends to lead to more procreation.

orion wrote:
So gay cannot marry because it would not bring us closer to our socialist paradise?

Well, if you put it that way…

No one is stopping them from marrying - in a private, as opposed to governmental classification, and holding themselves out as married - they’re just not getting the same tax benefits…[/quote]

But they are forced at gunpoint to support a lifestyle that is legally denied to them?

265

[quote]orion wrote:
But they are forced at gunpoint to support a lifestyle that is legally denied to them?[/quote]

No - they can make any lifestyle choice they want, they just can’t have the tax benefit. Much like I can’t have the tax benefit of the “tax rebate”, social security payments or scholarships designated for minorities.

ADDENDUM: To expand a bit, I also can’t have the benefit of any other government-approved spending program unless I meet the precise conditions specified: if they are incentivizing doctors to practice in low-income areas via tax breaks, I can’t decide to go open a law firm in a low-income area and claim the benefit.

266

We are being manipulated into surrendering all our values.

"When the Frankfurt School expanded its research after World War II at the behest of the American Jewish Committee and the Rockefeller Foundation, its purpose was not to identify anti-Semitism; that was merely a cover story. Its goal was to measure adherence to the core beliefs of Western Judeo-Christian civilization, so that these beliefs could be characterized as “authoritarian,” and discredited.

For the Frankfurt School conspirators, the worst crime was the belief that each individual was gifted with sovereign reason, which could enable him to determine what is right and wrong for the whole society; thus, to tell people that you have a reasonable idea to which they should conform, is authoritarian, paternalistic extremism."

The intellectual roots for the destruction of the West can be traced to this group (the Frankfurt School). The game plan is to destroy our values, to empty us, so we can be re-molded into something else.

267

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
We are being manipulated into surrendering all our values.

"When the Frankfurt School expanded its research after World War II at the behest of the American Jewish Committee and the Rockefeller Foundation, its purpose was not to identify anti-Semitism; that was merely a cover story. Its goal was to measure adherence to the core beliefs of Western Judeo-Christian civilization, so that these beliefs could be characterized as “authoritarian,” and discredited.

For the Frankfurt School conspirators, the worst crime was the belief that each individual was gifted with sovereign reason, which could enable him to determine what is right and wrong for the whole society; thus, to tell people that you have a reasonable idea to which they should conform, is authoritarian, paternalistic extremism."

The intellectual roots for the destruction of the West can be traced to this group (the Frankfurt School). The game plan is to destroy our values, to empty us, so we can be re-molded into something else.
[/quote]

To some extent I agree with this, but I think it is the left and Hollywood elite that are trying to make over the US in their image.

Most all surveys show that the media is out of step with the core values of the US. And yet they continue to try and manipulate society’s core values through TV, movies, etc.

268

Once again: If the government uses Marriage as a procreation creator than it can use gay marriage to depopulate.

China: Gay Marriages only.

Lovely logic. Marriage has nothing to do with strengthening a community or a bond between two people, nope. It’s all about making or not making babies.

269

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Once again: If the government uses Marriage as a procreation creator than it can use gay marriage to depopulate.

China: Gay Marriages only.

Lovely logic. Marriage has nothing to do with strengthening a community or a bond between two people, nope. It’s all about making or not making babies.[/quote]

It can be all sorts of things socially, without necessitating the government spend money to support those things. Marriage existed socially long before government spending programs…

270

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Once again: If the government uses Marriage as a procreation creator than it can use gay marriage to depopulate.

China: Gay Marriages only.

Lovely logic. Marriage has nothing to do with strengthening a community or a bond between two people, nope. It’s all about making or not making babies.

It can be all sorts of things socially, without necessitating the government spend money to support those things. Marriage existed socially long before government spending programs… [/quote]

Being against marriage as a government establishment and being against gay marriage and for straight marriage are two vastly different things.

Oh… and you did catch the sarcasm yes? I think you did but you can enver be to sure on the internets… =/

271

[quote]lucasa wrote:

Reproduction. Heterosexual couples can reproduce without a third party. It’s funny that you don’t know this, almost like it’s convenient for you to look past it.[/quote]

So the tax benefits (and everything else included in legal marriage) exist as motivation for reproduction? Ok, if thats the reason, that still doesn’t give reason to exclude homosexuals.

Lets say that offering marriage benefits makes people more likely to have (and, more importantly, raise) children.

Under this pretense, heterosexual couples that are on the fence are more likely to have kids.

Why wouldnt the same apply to homosexuals? Why does it matter if a third party is involved?

Hell, wouldnt it make MORE sense, then, if marriage encourages having/raising children, for more homosexual couples to get married and therefore be more likely to raise kids?

272

I mean, if encouraging reproduction is a goal of the government, which sounds more likely to result in it:

“We’re a gay couple, and even if we went through the hassle of having a child, we still wouldnt be able to get married, so raising the child would still be harder for us than a heterosexual couple.”

or

“We’re a gay couple, and if we go through the hassle of having a child, at least we can get married and raising the child will be easier.”

?

273

The thing to remember about marriage is that it evolved socially as a set of legal strictures to control the behavior of people - both men and women. There is a cost to entering into a marriage, but those marriages tend to produce a benefit to society: kids (and, more likely, functional kids if the marriage stays together).

The argument about excluding gay marriage is that including gays in marriage undermines the procreative justification for marriage, while at the same time undermines the social incentive for heterosexual couples to enter into marriage (the second point is stronger w/r/t not making some form of marriage light available to heterosexual couples). Western companionate marriage is as much about kids as it is about love - and the incentives the government gives to marriage are all about supporting families, i.e. all about encouraging procreation. The important concept lies in not just the potential, but the tendency of that particular type of union, in the aggregate, and in a natural unadulterated state to procreate, not the actual capability of an individual couple to do so. Aside from that, there’s no government incentive to test for ability to procreate.

The bottom line is that if the government wants to incentivize heterosexual couples to form unions that would tend to lead to more kids by giving them tax benefits, it has no duty to make those tax benefits available under the circumstances other people would prefer.

274

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
The bottom line is that if the government wants to incentivize heterosexual couples to form unions that would tend to lead to more kids by giving them tax benefits, it has no duty to make those tax benefits available under the circumstances other people would prefer.[/quote]

Unless the formation of those same unions by homosexual couples would tend to lead to more kids. Which, reasonably, they would.

275

Why do people care about gay marriage?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Because it´s totally gay.

I am sorry, I resisted the temptation for 11 pages…

276

Whats funny is that, if you look at the historic tradition of marriage, it has nothing to do with “encouraging procration”.

Marriage, in the classic sense, was a woman being property, and traded for some form of economic, material, or social value.

277

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Whats funny is that, if you look at the historic tradition of marriage, it has nothing to do with “encouraging procration”.

Marriage, in the classic sense, was a woman being property, and traded for some form of economic, material, or social value.[/quote]

Pretty much.

278

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Whats funny is that, if you look at the historic tradition of marriage, it has nothing to do with “encouraging procration”.

Marriage, in the classic sense, was a woman being property, and traded for some form of economic, material, or social value. [/quote]

You’ve read too much feminist literature.

Marriage, in the very classic sense, was about establishing clear relationships and avoiding the violence associated with “cheating”. This evolved into a property concept later.

Irrespective, gays can have all of marriage in its classic sense right now. Marriage tax breaks are a recent invention.

279

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
The bottom line is that if the government wants to incentivize heterosexual couples to form unions that would tend to lead to more kids by giving them tax benefits, it has no duty to make those tax benefits available under the circumstances other people would prefer.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Unless the formation of those same unions by homosexual couples would tend to lead to more kids. Which, reasonably, they would.[/quote]

You never do get it.

First, that wouldn’t affect the duty of the government. If the government decides it wants to stimulate the economy in DC by incentivizing the formation of grocery stores by providing tax breaks to people who start grocery stores, there’s no duty of the government to extend the same benefits to people who want to start gas stations, even if gas stations would also produce economic stimulation.

Second, the formation of homosexual unions would not lead to more kids without scientific intervention, and at least one third party. Kids who are adopted are already created the traditional way.

280

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:
The bottom line is that if the government wants to incentivize heterosexual couples to form unions that would tend to lead to more kids by giving them tax benefits, it has no duty to make those tax benefits available under the circumstances other people would prefer.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Unless the formation of those same unions by homosexual couples would tend to lead to more kids. Which, reasonably, they would.

You never do get it.

First, that wouldn’t affect the duty of the government. If the government decides it wants to stimulate the economy in DC by incentivizing the formation of grocery stores by providing tax breaks to people who start grocery stores, there’s no duty of the government to extend the same benefits to people who want to start gas stations, even if gas stations would also produce economic stimulation.
[/quote]

If the point of marriage is more kids, then letting gays marry would result in more kids. A child who exists because two men could get married is the same as a child who exists because a man and a woman could get married.

[quote]
Second, the formation of homosexual unions would not lead to more kids without scientific intervention, and at least one third party. Kids who are adopted are already created the traditional way.[/quote]

And it matters, why, if scientific intervention (or a third party) is involved?

If the governments sole aim in giving benefits to married couples is to encourage procreation, and giving marriage benefits to homosexuals would encourage procreation, it has no reason not to, and every reason to.

Though I suppose you’ll try to bring up the morality of scientific or third party involvement in reproduction? How the government should only want children that result from heterosexual (and are raised by heterosexual) unions?