City of San Francisco issuing marriage licenses to gays, weds 1 couple so far...

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You cannot show any intrinsic benefits to society from gay marriage, therefore, there is no reason to extend benefits to their relationships.

You continue to ignore the benefits to the individuals allowed... and when it comes to marriage, that's what it is all about.

You are just trying to discriminate against gays while hiding behind the typical, show me how it helps society, or it will hurt me, instead of thinking about the people involved. Which is pretty selfish considering there is NO PROVEN harm to you or society by allowing it, but a a big gain for those involved.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

No true Scotsman fallacy. Really, you can do better than this.

What you are saying is that, if a marriage collapses, it is not because of gay people, but because they were troubled before. This neglects to consider the origins of their problems, which may have different causes.

I acknowledge that not all marital difficulties have something to do with homosexuality. What I do not agree with is that changing the definition is not going to affect those marriages already in existence.

Consider the philosophy, that marriage is nothing more than a contract between two people, as espoused by numerous people in this very thread. What is that going to do for a couple thinking of divorce? Rather than fighting for their marriage, they will be more likely to give up.

What the.....?

Are you blatantly saying that even some marital difficulties have something to do with homosexuality (besides those where at least one of the spouses is actually homosexual)? Would you think that's reasonable at all?

As for what changing the definition of marriage is and it's implications for divorces, that warrants just as big a "what the......?"

Ben, answer this. If you got married under current circumstances (ie: ban on homosexual marriage) and all of a sudden homosexuals were granted full equality in the eyes of the law, would you be more likely to get divorced if your marriage ran into trouble than you would be if homosexual marriage remained a no-no? I mean for the love of pete - how can allowing gays to get married change your own personal views on what marriage and its commitments mean?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
And I refuted this argument by the argument that men and women are not interchangeable within the context of marriage. It makes no difference to a marriage, if you put a black woman in place of a white woman, where you have a very concrete difference between a man and a woman.

And this is an arbitrary distinction based on bias. If the man and woman are brother and sister, are they that interchangeable for you? Keep twisting in circles.

You say gays have a right to marry, limited to someone of the opposite gender. If the right to marry someone of the opposite gender is enough of a qualification for you to say someone has equal rights, then placing a limit on interracial, interethnic, etc. marriages should pose no problem for you, as such folks will still have a right to marry someone, just someone of only a particular variety. Just further qualifications for marriage.

Concept of marriage as a contract is corrosive to marriage in general. Deal with this argument.

It's not my argument, so why should I deal with it? You deal with it. I've not seen an effective proof from you that it IS corrosive, at any rate.

Secondly, we could go on this argument forever. You cannot show any intrinsic benefits to society from gay marriage, therefore, there is no reason to extend benefits to their relationships.

We've shown benefits in past discussion, you even acknowledge that it would encourage stable, monogomous relationships for gays which would be a good thing in general. However, the burden does not rest on our position, but yours. Equal access to government-ordained rights and priveledges does not require one to prove one is worthy of them. It is the burden of those who wish to deny such rights to demonstrate the harm of granting them, something you've categorically failed to do, your conjectures not withstanding.

[Ben Kenobi]

Kontiki:

I am arguing by analogy.

Just as the concept of marriage as a contract will corrode some marriages, so will redefining marriage corrode others.

I am exempt not because there is no effect, but rather, that I (and my girlfriend), reject this philosophy.

Of course, I could also drag in some other arguments, that in Canada, we may lose all marriage benefits, because of cases made by folks like LoA, that marriage is not within the realm of the state. Guaranteed, they will not grandfather the benefits, to those who were married before the change.

[Boris Godunov]

DP

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Secondly, we could go on this argument forever. You cannot show any intrinsic benefits to society from gay marriage, therefore, there is no reason to extend benefits to their relationships.

Umm...you conceded this very point in the other thread. Remember, I listed a bunch of benefits society receives from marriage in general and you agreed with them? Or are you now saying that those benefits only exist for straight people? And if you are, I'd like to see you give some reasons for that.

[Ben Kenobi]

And this is an arbitrary distinction based on bias.

No, it is not. There is a concrete difference between a man and a woman, with respect to marriage.

If the man and woman are brother and sister, are they that interchangeable for you?

I'm reminded of a very old idea. If a man marries his sister, with whom will he hunt? Marriage outside of one's own family has tangible benefits in the provision of extended family.

You say gays have a right to marry, limited to someone of the opposite gender. If the right to marry someone of the opposite gender is enough of a qualification for you to say someone has equal rights, then placing a limit on interracial, interethnic, etc. marriages should pose no problem for you,

Already argued against, on many different points. One, there is no right to marry. Two, the only defense of limiting interracial and interethnic marriage implies that they will corrupt the bloodlines. MtG made this point quite eloquently.

We've shown benefits in past discussion, you even acknowledge that it would encourage stable, monogomous relationships for gays which would be a good thing in general.

Put words in my mouth? I do not agree that such a thing would necessarily be beneficial for society. Rather I argue that it would not solve the health problems homosexuals already experience. Is the solution for an alcoholic to give him a nice bed in the bar so that he does not end up in the street?

Equal access to government-ordained rights and priveledges

No. That point is not for government ordained rights, but rather for fundamental rights. The government delivers pensions to veterans, a right entirely created by the government. Should they be required to disburse the benefit to everyone provided that no veteran have his pension lowered? I would argue that the onus, for government created rights and benefits, lies on those claiming the benefits, to show that they are indeed worthy of the benefits.

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by Ming
No... I'm asking you to prove how to unkown gay people getting married can break up a straight marriage. Your whole line is that changing the definition will cause problems for straight married couples... and I again ASK HOW!

One version of this argument might be that the problem applies not to the married couple but to their children. If there are all different types of sex and violence on TV, it may not affect parents, but might make it more difficult to teach appropriate conduct to children. Similarly, if there are all different types of "marriage" around it is more difficult for religious parents to teach their children what a religious marriage means.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I would argue that the onus, for government created rights and benefits, lies on those claiming the benefits, to show that they are indeed worthy of the benefits.

So the crack head mother of 12 children who spends her welfair money on more drugs has shown she is more worthy to receive a benefit than two gays who want to get married...



At first, their was a penality in the tax structure for those that got married. Living in sin actually was better for tax purposes.... Married straight couples NEVER had to prove that they were worthy of the benefits... so why should gays. Oh that's right, they are gay and you disapprove of them for solely religious reasons

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Kontiki:

I am arguing by analogy.

Just as the concept of marriage as a contract will corrode some marriages, so will redefining marriage corrode others.

I am exempt not because there is no effect, but rather, that I (and my girlfriend), reject this philosophy.

But it's a useless, non-sensical analogy. How exactly would it corrode any marriages? And why would other people embrace the philosophy, treating marriage as anything less than they do now? You admit that it wouldn't change your opinions on it, why would it change others'? I don't subscribe to your religious beliefs, and I can unequivocably tell you that whether or not I get married and how I treat a marriage has absolutely nothing to do with how the government views them from a legal perspective.

Of course, I could also drag in some other arguments, that in Canada, we may lose all marriage benefits, because of cases made by folks like LoA, that marriage is not within the realm of the state. Guaranteed, they will not grandfather the benefits, to those who were married before the change.

Well, I'm not arguing a libertarian position like LoA, but it's still a non-starter. Most of those benefits are built in to the government recognizing the contract and/or the contract itself. (survivorship, implied POA, visitation rights, etc).

[Ming]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
Similarly, if there are all different types of "marriage" around it is more difficult for religious parents to teach their children what a religious marriage means.

If you are religious, and you want to pass that on to your children, it is your problem to do so within the confines of society as it is. There is a seperation of Church and State... it's not the states job to make it easier for one religion over another to pass on their traditions and beliefs. It is the job of the parent and the Church to do that.

One could argue just the opposite as well. By enforcing the view of the religious right, you are telling children that the only way to live your life is one prescribed by a given religion, and that you have no choice in your life.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You forget the words of Dr. King.

"The law may not be able to make the white man love me, but it can stop him from lynching me."

You are not lynched, you are not beaten, you are not segregated, you are not taught in seperate schools, you are not dragged behind pickup trucks, with the government looking askance, you are equal in every sense of the law.

What you desire, cannot be given, cannot be granted by the government.

Ostracised? How can you say you are ostracised, when you have numerous television shows devoted to the glorification of your lifestyle? When people bend over backwards to provide accomodation and acceptance?

Sexual degredation? Are gays being raped?

Just because we suffer less legal discrimination than blacks have suffered in the past, does not mean we do not face ANY discrimination -- stop using the all or nothing argument.


Ostracized as in a gay teenager risks being disowned by his family just because he is gay.
Ocstracized as in being threatened with physical violence by your peers for being gay.
Ostracized as in being harassed at work for being gay, and when you report it to the appropriate office, they don't give a rat's ass.
Ostracized as in . . . . well, I'm sure you get the picture.

Yeah, it's fabulous that the media culture has embraced gays and included us by portraying us in more realistic, positive images, but sometimes the media culture does not accurately portray social reality.

And when people celebrated the brutal, inhuman beating of Matthew Shepherd in public places while he was still in a coma in the hospital, it did not strike me as bending over backwards to accepting us as human beings worthy of respect. But on the other hand, you had a majority of people who found the beating repugnant and cruel -- but I will never forget the fact that there were others who publicly celebrated this heinous crime.


As for sexual degradation, what I meant by that, was that homophobics like to overly sexualize meaingful, committed relationships between gays to tar us as not being worthy of finding someone of the same gender whom we love, and with whom we would like to share our life with through other means than just sex.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No, it is not. There is a concrete difference between a man and a woman, with respect to marriage.

A distinction that has not been proven to be substantially different for same-gendered couples. Unless you're saying that men and women aren't equal? Regardless, the same argument could be made there are concrete differences between black men and white women, and vice-versa.

I'm reminded of a very old idea. If a man marries his sister, with whom will he hunt? Marriage outside of one's own family has tangible benefits in the provision of extended family.

Nobody's hunting here. But government dispensation of marriage licenses isn't dependent on such a "tangible benefit." After all, under this rationale, what benefit is there to marrying someone who happens to be the sole member of her family? And marrying one's sister could produce benefits, such as retaining property within the family and extending partner benefits to one's sister, were she in need.

Already argued against, on many different points. One, there is no right to marry.

Weren't you the one earlier who said it was in the constitution? Which is it now?

Rights to marry are given by the states. As has been explained to you many times before, the U.S. Constitution's enumeration of rights doesn't limit our people to just those rights.

Two, the only defense of limiting interracial and interethnic marriage implies that they will corrupt the bloodlines. MtG made this point quite eloquently.

I don't see why this is any less sound of a rationale than the one that says allowing gay marriage will somehow corrupt marriage as an institution.

Put words in my mouth? I do not agree that such a thing would necessarily be beneficial for society. Rather I argue that it would not solve the health problems homosexuals already experience. Is the solution for an alcoholic to give him a nice bed in the bar so that he does not end up in the street?

Which health problems are those? Vagueness is your forte, I know, but I want specifics what you won't think will be solved my marriage, and also how the institution does solve those things for heterosexuals, and why it would do so for them and not gays. That's

No. That point is not for government ordained rights, but rather for fundamental rights. The government delivers pensions to veterans, a right entirely created by the government. Should they be required to disburse the benefit to everyone provided that no veteran have his pension lowered?

Veterans benefits are akin pensions alloted to any employees of a business. They were employed by the U.S. Government, so the government can give them those benefits as reward for their service. That's an entirely different matter from the government handing out marriage licenses to anyone who comes to city hall and signs a paper, which involves no service to the government or (as is often the case for veterans) compulsion.

I would argue that the onus, for government created rights and benefits, lies on those claiming the benefits, to show that they are indeed worthy of the benefits.

Not so if the benefits are already dispensed to one segment of the population and in a discriminatory manner while doing so.

And I have to address this:

"The law may not be able to make the white man love me, but it can stop him from lynching me."

Which is precisely our point. The law may not make homophobic *******s accept us, but it can stop them from denying us the ability they hold to form legal marriages with partners we love.

[chequita guevara]

What about recognized religions that allow gay marriage?

[Ming]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
What about recognized religions that allow gay marriage?

First... BK thinks all those people will burn in hell

But seriously... as it is now, religions that do recognize gay marriages in states/countries that don't recogonize it means very little to the rights that gays are trying to achieve. A religious rite not supported by the state can not provide the rights that gays are fighting for. It goes way beyond being able to claim you are married.