Gore sexual assualt Follow

Huh! Where did you get that idea? I said that the goal of the benefits is to encourage people to get married before they get themselves pregnant. We don't want heterosexual couples engaging in sex without being married. Obviously, we're not making it illegal or anything, but we try to do everything we can to encourage them to get married. I'm sure you've heard that it used to be considered a virtue to be a virgin on your wedding night, right? Why do you suppose that was? Think about it. It's not that hard to see the pattern here.



We can't prevent people from having sex. We can, however, try to get those who are most likely to produce children as a consequence of having sex to get married as early as possible, thus minimizing the odds of them producing children outside of marriage. It's not perfect, but it's the best you can do while still giving the people the freedom to make their own choices.

Why do you think we have those benefits? I've asked this a couple times now, but no one is willing to answer. If my "obvious" reason isn't good enough, then what alternative explanation do you propose?

I'll present the same scenario I presented Xsarus. Imagine a world in which new humans appear magically fully grown and able to be productive members of society. There are no parents and no children. Would marriage exist? If it did, would we provide special benefits to those who chose to marry above and beyond the contract itself? Why?

If you answer as any sane person would, that there would be no reason at all to create benefits for marriage in that world, then how can you continue to argue that those benefits don't exist for the purpose of encouraging people to enter into a state of marriage for some reason very specifically having to do with the ability to produce children? I guess I just don't understand why you'd not see this. It's well beyond just "obvious". It's nearly axiomatic to the concept of marriage itself.

Yes marriage would absolutely exist because a large part of the history of marriage was to lay exclusive claim to a women, and I'd see no reason that would change.

Would we recognize that married couples were different in some way and have special laws for that? I'd say yes. Would they be the same laws? In a world where people magically appear probably not, but they still would be there.

It's impossible to say anything meaningful about the scenario you present though, as it's completely bizarre and would fundamentally change everything about everything.

Edited, Jun 29th 2010 5:33pm by Xsarus

But! Why was this case? Because laying exclusive claim to a woman is the only way a patriarchal agnate system can function - it is the only way to ensure, in an age without paternity tests, that a child belongs to a specific man's bloodline.

Quod erat demonstrandum...

And then he's <this post has been redacted due to a copyright claim by the Church of Scientology>.

No, it's not. I'm not sure why you keep arguing that it is. The benefits are separate from what we have a "fundamental right" to with regard to marriage. The case in question was argued on the grounds of equal opportunity. The argument was principally that prohibiting marriage between white people and any other race served no legitimate purpose other than one of racism and placed an undo burden on couples choosing partners. At no point in the case was the issue of state issued benefits even mentioned.



From Loving v Virginia:

Two points:

1. The issue was not merely a denial state benefits, nor even a denial of the right to enter into a marriage contract. It was a criminal offense, and one which carried with it jail time. There's a huge whopping difference between criminalizing behavior (as in this case) and not rewarding behavior (as in the case of gay marriage).

2. The conditions of offense in this case applied even if the marriage was *not* a legally obtained one. Merely living together as husband and wife was sufficient offense. Now, we can presume that other laws might have been levied against gay couples living together as a couple, I'm quite sure that no gay couple even in that situation would have had this law used against them. No one considered that a "marriage" in this context and the court certainly did not consider the issue of a same sex couple when rendering judgment.


You cannot argue that this case in any way lends us weight on the issue of gay marriage as it exists before us right now. Yet you (and others) keep on bringing it up as though there is no relevant difference between a white man and a black woman, and two men or two women regardless of race. The issues are completely different. One does not apply to the other. Discrimination is only unlawful *if* the discrimination serves no purpose within the context of the law. In the case of Loving, it didn't. But in the case of gay marriages, it absolutely suits the purpose of the law to restrict state benefits to married couples only to those couples for whom the state has a vested interest in getting to marry, and on who's behalf all of those benefits were created in the first place.


If you can show me a single case of one of the state marriage benefits historically being argued for on behalf of a gay couples, then you might have a point. But you can't. What you're doing is saying that we can change the definition of something, but retain all the "rules" associated with that thing which were created based on the earlier definition. It's kinda silly...

Correct. Remove the need or even ability to maintain bloodlines and inheritance and the need for marriage pretty much disappears. That's not to say that there wouldn't be some formal relationships formed and whatnot, but they would not hold the same importance to society that marriage does today.

Similarly, gay marriages, while certainly allowable, don't hold the same importance to society as heterosexual marriages do. It really is just about biology.

So this is why you're still a virgin?

No. I just only have sex with married women. Lol...

Could be but it wasn't what I was referencing.


Regardless of its focus, it states that marriage includes the state recognized contract which, in turn, would include the various benefits that go with it. There is only one legal "marriage" and that comes with all the things that... well... marriage comes with.


Nor does it really hold less relevance since it has since been cited numerous times and never contested. If a SCotUS case was to result in a finding that marriage doesn't include those things then you'd have a point. But that has yet to happen whereas the nature of marriage as described has been consistently upheld. Even in cases regarding homosexual marriage, no attempt has been made to abridge the definition of marriage to exclude the civil benefits.

Although, even if the Loving case, the mention of marriage being a "basic civil rights of man" isn't constrained purely to interracial marriage. Rather, the point is being made that marriage is a basic civil rights of man and therefore interracial discrimination is wrong. That doesn't mean that only interracial discrimination is wrong though.

Well, if you're so certain of it, where's your proof?

BD. Your list includes things gained as a result of entering into the marriage contract *and* benefits gained from the government. We're talking only about the government provided benefits though, since that's the only thing being denied to gay couples.

Try again.

No, actually. We're talking about the whole kit and caboodle. Which is why "civil as well as governmental" has been in most posts.

Ah, **** it. I quit. I'm not at work anymore, so I don't need the distraction.