Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bababooyee
You are confusing privileges with rights. They are two very distinct concepts.
I'm not making a moral argument any more so than you are. Furthermore, this is not a proper analogy to the topic at hand. The fact that (im)morality was used to object to interracial marriage is not the same because the circumstances are not the same. For example, banning/prohibiting is not the same as legally defining marriage...eg, a gay couple would still be free to make any life long commitment they want - they just don't get the same legal benefits/privileges/entitlements that a hetero couple would, etc.
Again, we're not talking an outright ban. See above as well as my previous post(s).
Also, why just two? Just curious as to why that limitation seems ok to you.
What if they are father-daughter (both being consenting adults)? Brother-sister? Mother-son?
What if its two straight males who want to marry for the tax benefits, family leave, health care, inheritance, etc.?
You admit that you feel that the law can and should be used to encourage behavior beneficial to the nation's economic and political health. So, giving benefits to those in a committed relationship that often and naturally result in children is certainly in line with that view. Moreover, not all married hetero couples get every benefit - eg if they have no children, they don't get the tax break, etc. IOW, there is a natural tie between "traditional" marriage and procreation, and marriage is what it is even if its essential purpose is not always actualized - so let's encourage it as it is more beneficial to the state than not.
Furthermore, what if giving all committed relationships the same benefits was detrimental to the nation's economic and political health? For example, a new, sudden and massive burden on family courts (as well as the appellate courts), a new, sudden and massive burden on employers and insurance companies, etc.
Also, if you don't "buy it", so what? You're for forcing your moral views (ie sex should be irrelevant wrt two consenting adults who want to committ to each other) on others. Moreover, forcing those views on others would likely have a greater and more tangible burden on those who disagree with you than the opposite.
Don't get all high and mighty on me, sister. Especially not when you admit that you're arguing from a moral standpoint as well. 
Do you really believe all people should be treated equally? Really? If you are against incestuous committed relationships between two consenting adults receiving the same privileges/benefits as “traditional marriage”, then you are not. If you think that an occasional orgasm should be involved in order for committed relationships between two consenting adults to receive the same privileges/benefits as “traditional marriage”, then you are not.
If you are in favor of progressive taxation (like most leftists), then you are not for across the board equal treatment. Far from it, actually. |
Oh my stars and garters, the progressive taxation thing again. Again (I said this in an earlier thread)-- people in a progressive tax system are all taxed equally. What is not taxed equally is the money. Bill Gates' first $30,000 of income is taxed at EXACTLY the same rate as my first $30,000 of income. And I don't make much more than $30,000. It's the increase in income that gets taxed more heavily, not the individual. Don't want your upper level income to be taxed at 37 percent (or whatever it is now)? Then don't earn that much. Why is this so hard for people to wrap their heads around?
Bababooyee, c'mon- "traditional" marriage was about assets, land and stuff. So why is it wrong for two same-sex people to get married for assets, land and stuff?
Frankly, if twelve consenting adults want to get married together, I don't care. Freaking weird, if you ask me, but they're not hurting anyone. But I don't think that's likely to ever be a real issue in this nation, as the polygamists in this nation seem prefer getting "married" to girls who have barely started menstruating. I'd hardly call that consent. People who yell that gay marriage will be a downward slope to polygamy (not you; you've never said that) fail to take into account the jealousy factor. Fact is, monogamy has nothing to do with how many people you want to sleep with; it has to do with how many people you want your spouse to sleep with. in the majority of cases, that number is one, you. I can cheerfully envision myself sleeping with any number of men (Daniel Craig at the top of the list) and still adoring my husband. But the thought of him sleeping with anyone else makes a red film descend over my eyes. So, I give up my dreams of stalking Daniel Craig and choose monogamy, trusting that he'll keep his thing for Kate Winslet confined to his fantasies.
I don't think I'm confusing privileges with rights at all. Fact is, you can choose to consider anything a "privilege"- it's up to a society to decide what a "right" is. Do you consider freedom from slavery a right or a privilege? Our founding fathers described our inalienable rights as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"- denying someone the right to be viewed as married in the eyes of the state is, to me, a pretty obvious denial of the pursuit of happiness.
Seeing as how the Bush administration spent millions of our tax dollars on its "marriage initiative" I don't think anyone in government is concerned about the effects of additonal marriages on appellate courts or on businesses, so I don't buy that argument. Though you can make an argument that marriage is discriminatory against single people.
Bababooyee, without the LEGAL right to marriage, a gay man or woman has no, none, nada protection when their partner dies. So, a person who has spent 50 years of his or her life with another person has no rights about making end-of-life decisions, and if the birth family chooses to contest a will, the partner can be left with nothing. They don't get the pensions given to a widow or widower. It's wrong.
And here's my other question- how is getting married forcing one's views on anyone? You don't like the idea of gays men and women getting married? Don't go to their weddings. It's not your business. I think one can make a very strong argument that something that causes pain and suffering should be handled by law, but I don't see how gay marriage causes any kind of pain and suffering, other than what one can find in heterosexual marriage. So it offends you. Is it hurting anyone?
And I also don't buy the "but the kids, the kids" argument. I've seen many a child raised by gay parents here in the city (working at a cultural institution's educational department, you meet a lot of children), and they're just like any other kids. And hey, every gay person on this planet is the result of a heterosexual union, so go figure.