Gore sexual assualt Follow

you forgot the part where I said it has to be recognized by the state. Not sure how you missed that, seeing how my post was only like 2 sentences long.


Show me how to set up a contract between me and another person where we get tax incentives.

Edited, Jun 29th 2010 3:28pm by Bardalicious

Yep. It sucks when the majority of people in a state want to oppress the minority. Good thing we have courts for that sort of thing!

OH HAY

RELEVANT

No, what's amazing is how completely and utterly @#%^ing obtuse you are.

1. Marriage is a fundamental civil right of man.
2. Marriage, in a legal sense, is constituted by a license and solemnization issued by the state.
3. Any laws that apply certain benefits to legally married couples should extend to all legally married couples, not merely those that fall under some completely arbitrary and non-legal definition of marriage as posed by you or any other culturally retarded individual.

ETA: the creation of "civil unions" in order not to offend the delicate sensibilities of idiots everywhere (or in your case, to sidestep marriage benefits) constitutes "separate but (questionably) equal", which as we have established, was struck down by the Supreme Court long ago as inherently "not equal".

Edited, Jun 29th 2010 3:47pm by BrownDuck

Edited, Jun 29th 2010 3:47pm by BrownDuck

If I answer that question, will you answer mine?

Since we're talking about the state benefits and not the contract itself, we can argue that the state benefits exist as an incentive or reward used to encourage couples to marry. While you're free to disagree, my belief is that said incentive is motivated by the social need to encourage heterosexual couples to marry prior to producing children. Applying those rewards only to same race couples does not improve the utility of that purpose (in fact it diminishes it) *and* it serves a primarily racist purpose of separating people by skin color. It effectively discourages mixed-race couples and thus can be seen as a violation of equal rights.

The rationale for eliminating restrictions on interracial couples does *not* justify same-sex couples, because the primary rationale for said incentives does not apply to same-sex couples. The Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that discrimination is only unconstitutional if the discrimination does not serve a purpose relevant to the law in question. For marriage, restrictions against interracial couples did not serve a purpose, and thus the restriction was unconstitutional. Gay couples cannot produce children together, thus the same need to encourage them to marry does not exist, thus it's not only not constitutional, it's wholly appropriate to limit those benefits to those couples who do.


By extension, this places the restriction on all combinations of couples/groups which do not consist of those which would otherwise naturally produce children on their own and for whom we desire to encourage to marry before hand. Thus, we don't provide those benefits to siblings since we don't want siblings producing children together. We don't provide them to child/adult relationships because they can't produce children either (assuming one is too young of course). The restrictions become logical and reasonable and stem from the simple examination of the basic purpose of the benefits themselves.


Can you do the same? Can you justify why those benefits should be granted to same-sex couples yet not also apply to siblings and child/adult relationships? How about multi-partner relationships? What is the rationale you'd use for restricting this change to *only* include gay couples?

We infringe upon rights all the time when we feel it's appropriate to the common good. I can't create child pornography, sacrifice my son to Moloch, make death threats against the president, fire off a bazooka or do any number of other things that are covered by existing rights. The difference here is that you're so committed to the idea that your ideology is flawless that you refuse to admit that you're infringing upon the "fundamental right to marry". Maybe there's a reason to do so in the common good (not that I've heard one yet) but you won't even start down that road and instead insist on some silly debate about how it doesn't really exist or can be satisfied by just saying "Yay! We're married!"


Those things are part of the legal concept of marriage and, when discussing whether or not our government should permit homosexual couples to legally wed, the legal concept of marriage is infinitely more important that whatever bits of sophistry you can dream up to shift the debate. It has already been decided that the fundamental right to marry includes those aspects and so, for as long as those aspects exist, they are a integral part of the debate.

The benefits of marriage did not come about to encourage people to get married, but as a reaction to people being in the state of marriage. They are not a carrot, They are not there to convince anyone to get married, they are there as a recognition that a shared property partnership requires different rules.

Edited, Jun 29th 2010 4:06pm by Xsarus

Again, the benefits aren't for that.

No, he's absolutely correct. The civil government aspects of marriage are included in this fundamental right.

That's not why the benefits exist. When you start with a false premise, you're just going to keep embarrassing yourself.

Edited, Jun 29th 2010 4:12pm by Jophiel

They're both really. They are a set of incentives, but they also make some of the potential negatives of marriage a bit less harmful. Interestingly enough, they do so to the most degree in a "traditional" marriage in which one person works and the other stays at home and raises the children. The SS and pension benefits are there specifically because one person might have stopped their career and therefore didn't have the opportunity to gain SS and/or pension benefits for themselves and their retirement. The tax brackets are only a benefit for couples in which there is a large gap between their incomes. Same deal with the tax break for health care benefits. If both work, they're often not needed, but if one isn't working, it's important.


They absolutely are an incentive, specifically to any couple intending to have children. Otherwise, most of our laws actually make marriage unattractive. Frankly, I'm most mystified why so many gay couples *want* to get married. They don't have to and could choose to define their relationships any way they want, but in some kind of "kid demanding the other kids toy" way, they demand that they get the somewhat incredibly restrictive marriage rules and laws we impose on heterosexual couples. Um... Ok. It's dumb, but whatever. But when you apply the benefits to gay couples, you just get a waste of money for no reason at all.

No, they're not. When the best evidence you have ever shown to support this claim is to whine "It's ooobbvviioouuussss!!!" over and over, maybe you'd be best off dropping this assertion.

Nope, they are not in place to convince anyone to get married. Perhaps some people get married to get the benefits, but that is not why they are there.

Edited, Jun 29th 2010 4:21pm by Xsarus