Sir Xsarus wrote:
We've already established pretty thoroughly that most if not all of the "benefits" are not related in any way to children.
First off, the benefits need not be directly related to children to create an incentive to enter into a marriage contract in the first place. However, a number of them are pretty directly related to the condition of a married couple with children. Specifically, the common case where one parent works full time and the other either doesn't work, or works part time. There are a whole set of benefits connected to that:
Tax rates. The income tax rates are actually disadvantageous to two people earning the same amount of money. But they are beneficial to a couple where one makes significantly more than the other.
Tax deduction for health benefits for spouse. This also makes it easier on couples in which one works and the other does (or doesn't work where health benefits are provided).
Social Security benefits. A surviving spouse can draw on his/her own social security of that of the deceased, which ever is larger. A benefit for a couple where one may have given up a career to raise children.
Pension benefits. Same deal as above.
Military survivor benefits. Same deal as above.
Those are the biggies when it comes to marriage benefits. And they pretty directly relate to things which are helpful to a couple planning to have children.
The problem is that Gbaji has decided that for some reason children are his personal justification for having any benefits, regardless of why they actually were implemented, and that anything else just doesn't count.
Ok. Then why do you think we provide state marriage benefits? Everyone always insists that I'm wrong here, but no one ever seems to be able to come up with any alternative explanation beyond "because it would help them". As I've already stated, that's a stupid reason to provide benefits to a group of people. There is no end to the number of benefits we could provide based on that rationale. There *must* be a reason why we provide married couples with those benefits, but don't provide everyone a free pony.
It honestly boggles my mind that some people can't understand that "because it benefits them" isn't a legitimate reason to create a benefit.
You can see it in this thread where he stated it right out, they are his reasons for not opposing them.
Yes. Why not take me at my word that this is the reason for not opposing those benefits when provided to heterosexual couples, and that they don't apply to gay couples?
The problem is that his contrived structure doesn't actually reflect the reasons for any of them, so they are pretty much useless. He won't engage though, because having constructed something he finds comforting, he won't leave it. /shrug.
You've given me no reason to leave it though. None at all. You spend tons of time talking about how wrong I am and how I should change my point of view, but nearly no time at all actually presenting any sort of compelling argument in support of what you say. You need to do more than just say that I'm wrong.