Why can't gays accept civil unions and just be done with it?

[WorldWatcher]

Don't worry, not going the marrying the dog route. I have far too much respect for your side of the fight for that. I'm alsoNot a kill the messenger type. So no need to duck. Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose, just part of being involved.

But, logically, should marriage include same gender partnerships I can't for the life of me see why same sex brothers/sisters would not be allowed to marry. The state would have no logical reason to make the compelling interest argument since the relationship could not involve procreation. On the other hand, I can see that, on the flipside, the state would maintain the compelling interest argument.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I keep finding differences more than I find commonalities.

I just want to take a moment and say thank you for the reasoned and respectful conversation. Something that on these interwebs can be few and far between.

To often these treads degrade into back and forth ad hominem posts instead of a frank and respectful exchange of ideas. The value in our discussion isn't that you might think you changed my mind (you didn't ) or that think I changed yours (I probably didn't ).

To me the difference is like how Prop 8 (California) was handled verses how Question 1 (Maine) was handled. In California in 2008 there were demonstrations and a legal challenge to the law barring Same-sex Civil Marriage. Mainer's took a different track, they accepted the will of the people with honor and humility, but they didn't give up. Over the next couple of years there was a quite campaign of conversations to change attitudes through social discourse instead of demonstrations. As a result Mainer's changed their minds and passed Civil Marriage Equality at the ballot box.


>>>?

 

[Pop23]

Seems like we are more like Maine and less like California.

You have not moved me except that I have more, not less respect for your side of the aisle and will keep my mind open

I left participating on this thread for awhile when the pissing matches began, I really didn't want to be associated with it, only returning when it died down.

 

[logical4u]

Two points

If "homosexual unions" are given "equal rights", what is to stop same sex relatives from forming a "union" to scam the tax code/gov't benefits?

What will be the policy regarding "homosexual unions", regarding travel into foreign nations where homosexuality is ILLEGAL? How many military personnel will be sacrificed trying to force this lifestyle onto "foreign soil"?

 

[Seawytch]

Two points

If "homosexual unions" are given "equal rights", what is to stop same sex relatives from forming a "union" to scam the tax code/gov't benefits?

Laws forbidding marriage between close familial ties (which vary from state to state, I might add) will not change as a result of gays obtaining marriage equality.

What will be the policy regarding "homosexual unions", regarding travel into foreign nations where homosexuality is ILLEGAL? How many military personnel will be sacrificed trying to force this lifestyle onto "foreign soil"?

What are you talking about?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Two points

If "homosexual unions" are given "equal rights", what is to stop same sex relatives from forming a "union" to scam the tax code/gov't benefits?

Currently? The same thing that stops different sex relatives from forming entering a Civil Marriage to scam the tax code/gov't benefits.

What will be the policy regarding "homosexual unions", regarding travel into foreign nations where homosexuality is ILLEGAL? How many military personnel will be sacrificed trying to force this lifestyle onto "foreign soil"?

That will be up to that country. Whether homosexuals are Civilly Married will make no differnce in that foreign country.

How many countries did we attack to force interracial marriage on other countries.


>>>>

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Two points

If "homosexual unions" are given "equal rights", what is to stop same sex relatives from forming a "union" to scam the tax code/gov't benefits?

What will be the policy regarding "homosexual unions", regarding travel into foreign nations where homosexuality is ILLEGAL? How many military personnel will be sacrificed trying to force this lifestyle onto "foreign soil"?

what prevents opposite-sex couples from tying the knot in order to scam the system?

the premise holds no value in whether or not people should be recognized as married by the state

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I love it. 24 pages of semantical arguments. Rightyloons you hate gay people we get it. Leftytoons you can try to justify things all you want but Tab A is meant to go into slot B. Now that we have reality out of the way I say let them get gay married. They should have to deal with the same shit the rest of us do. Why should they be allowed a pass on custody battles and alimony and everything else?

love it, a drive by asshole libertarian

 

[bodecea]

Two points

If "homosexual unions" are given "equal rights", what is to stop same sex relatives from forming a "union" to scam the tax code/gov't benefits?

What will be the policy regarding "homosexual unions", regarding travel into foreign nations where homosexuality is ILLEGAL? How many military personnel will be sacrificed trying to force this lifestyle onto "foreign soil"?

What's stopping opposite sex relatives now?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Before I continue the discussion, let me express my sympathy at your loss. Losing a sibling is hard. Those that have not gone through it will never understand it.

Thank you, with the assistance of the Red Cross I was able to return home from overseas for a couple of weeks to be with her at the end. By that time she was still in a lot of pain and she took med's for that, but at the end she was a peace with her family around her.



Nope, probably not an issue in the context of the question which is to assume that Same-sex Civil Marriage becomes a reality.

My opinion is that, if same gender marriage is not different than opposite gender marriage, the answer is simple. The Government has either no compelling interest, or they have a compelling interest.

Can't be both, or can it?

Not necessarily that simple, as that debate has not been going on.

What most people use close-family Civil Marriage as is a (not saying you of course, but most people) throw close-family Civil Marriage, bestiality, raping children (pedophilia) and bigamy out for is as a fear mongering tactic. The tactic is to dehumanize same-sex couples and associate them with other classes of less than desirable relationships (close-family members), animal fornicators, and child rapists.

The tactic is really transparent and results from an inability to define a coherent argument, form a civil law standpoint, against Same-sex Civil Marriage. The only time that tactic really works is when used within an echo chamber of like minded individuals. It doesn't work with logical thinkers nor with the younger generation that sees through it and support marriage equality in very high numbers.


>>>>

Don't worry, not going the marrying the dog route. I have far too much respect for your side of the fight for that. I'm alsoNot a kill the messenger type. So no need to duck. Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose, just part of being involved.

But, logically, should marriage include same gender partnerships I can't for the life of me see why same sex brothers/sisters would not be allowed to marry. The state would have no logical reason to make the compelling interest argument since the relationship could not involve procreation. On the other hand, I can see that, on the flipside, the state would maintain the compelling interest argument.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I keep finding differences more than I find commonalities.

Remember that a compelling interest is not the sole criterion to justify the state’s desire to disallow equal protection rights.

Restrictions to a given law must also be applied equally to all, where no particular class of persons is adversely effected.

Laws prohibiting siblings from marrying meet that criterion, where all siblings are disallowed to marry – siblings of all races, ethnic groups, religions, national origins, genders, and sexual orientations.

Indeed, states have the authority to regulate a wide variety of activities, provided, again, regulatory measures are applied consistently and equally to all.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Two points

If "homosexual unions" are given "equal rights", what is to stop same sex relatives from forming a "union" to scam the tax code/gov't benefits?

What will be the policy regarding "homosexual unions", regarding travel into foreign nations where homosexuality is ILLEGAL? How many military personnel will be sacrificed trying to force this lifestyle onto "foreign soil"?

Interestingly enough, I worked as a Personnelman (meaning I handled the service records and pay accounts of those in my command) for 20 years in the U.S. Navy, and yes, there WERE instances of a man and a woman having a sham marriage to get the benefits of BAQ (Basic Allowance for Quarters) and VHA (Variable Housing Allowance), so that they didn't have to live on the ship, and could afford an apartment out in town. Why? Because generally, E4 and below weren't allowed to live off base if they were single at the time I was in.

As far as forcing the homosexual lifestyle on people in foreign lands? Really? Because the benefits that same sex couples (who are military) would enjoy don't come from the country they're in, they come from the USA.

How much do you REALLY know about the military?

 

[PJC]

I think the point is that we all have the right to Marry under the current law. What some would contend is that the current law restricts them from Marrying who they want without restriction.

First, I admire the courage of their conviction. For many years, simply expressing that opinion would have been the lone voice in a very large population. It takes courage even today. Good for you and all on your side of the discussion.

Saying that, I disagree.

All rights come with restrictions. I can't think of a single right that allows it to be excersized, at all times and under all conditions. I also know of no law that forces anyone to excesize those rights.

We have the right to free speech, but if you see someone light a lighter in a crowded theater, and someone yell's "fire" in a terrifying manner, he has violated a condition of free speech. He committed a crime.

At the same time, although we all have the right to the freedom of speech, no one can compel you to speak. Your right is never violated because you don't want to excesize the right.

The laws in most state and on the federal level states that a marriage is a right that is available to all with certain qualifications. The Government does not say you must Marry, it simply says you may Marry, but if you wish too, you must meet certain qualifications.

In this case Same Gender unions, IMO, the government should see that a one size fits all law simply does not work for a segment of the population and we are attempting to create a law that will make that segment whole.

And any limits/restrictions on any of those fundamental rights must be justified by a compelling state interest. There has been none given for denying same sex marriage. That is the whole point.

The government does not restrict anyone from entering into a marriage contract. The institution itself, carved out in the manner it was, was so that repopulation (population being required to even have the need for a Government), occurs in an orderly fashion, or as orderly as the government can manage (orderly because the Government only exists if the population is orderly enough to be governed)

Marriage is just a set of incentives granted to those couples that enter into a contract that creates a population in, what is felt to be orderly enough to be governed. The government also penalizes those that opt out of that contract, by taking the benefits away from them. I don't really see why the government does not penalize divorce to a greater extent than they do, but that's for a different discussion.

Creation of the population will always fall on components of a female and a male combination. I do not see this as separate but equal, I see this as different.

Actually the govt does restrict some from entering into a marriage contract. Your claim there is wrong, sir. It restricts children younger than the age of consent, it restricts those who are mentally incompetent and therefore cannot give informed consent. Further, you failed to include the entire thing which the govt restricts: it restricts people from marrying the consenting adult of their choice. People cannot marry their relatives even if they are adults and even if they give consent; they restrict people from being simultaneously married to multiple spouses, and they restrict people from marrying the same sex.

Any and all of those restrictions must have a compelling state interest for them. There is no such compelling state interest for limiting it to opposite sex.

Also, your "creation of the population" is just another way of saying the procreation argument which stipulates that the compelling state interest is procreation; hence marriage is denied to gays because they cannot procreate with each other. The Supreme Court showed last week in both the Prop 8 case and the DOMA case that the procreation argument lacked logical consistency across the board when they brought up the point that the argument does not apply to heterosexual married couples who won’t or can’t reproduce. they are not helping to create the population, therefore using your argument they should be denied the right to marry. Since they are not denied such, then the law (DOMA) is not applied equally and is therefore illogical and unconstitutional.

In basic logic and in law; rules/laws must apply equally to like situations. If they do not, the rule/law is discriminatory. Discrimination in logic and in law is fine as long as there is a justifiable reason for the disparity. No logical justification for the disparity between heterosexual couples who cannot reproduce and homosexual couples who cannot reproduce have been posited here or in the court; therefore the law must apply to them equally. Since it does not, the law is unconstitutional and is illogical.

 

[PJC]

I'd does not, and how can't see where it could, but that, in itself does not show how the inclusion promotes the basic principle that marriage was created as an incentive for those that can, within those unions, create population, and those in same gender couplings cannot.

Again, not separate but equal, completely different.

Then why allow marriages to those who are sterile or those who have stated they do not want children?

The current institution of marriage is available to those who choose to have children. That number is not impacted by gays, infertile or unwilling couples

Gay marriages also can have children if they want to

Not my argument at all. Births among couples that include a male and a female (or the components of those genders) comprise 100% of of the whole. To say that one group of couples (male - female), are, for repopulation purposes, equal to another group (same gender), is not realistic.

The argument you make is better suited for dropping Marriage, and civil unions all together. IMHO.

Your argument is saying that simply because the couples are not exactly the same, they should be treated differently under the law.

This then would set a legal precedent that could be used in any number of ways. Couple A is Upper Class, Couple B is middle class, Couple C is lower class. They are clearly unequal; therefore laws should apply unequally to them. The Lower Class and the Middle class should not be allowed to legally marry simply because to say that they are equal to another group (Upper Class), is not realistic.

Couple D is white, Couple E is black; therefore Couple D should be allowed to marry and Couple E should not be allowed to legally marry simply because to say that they are equal to another group (White), is not realistic.

Couple F is from the under-populated state of Alaska; Couple G is from the over-populated State of California; Couple F should be allowed to marry, Couple G should not be allowed to legally marry simply because to say that they are equal to another group (Alaska), is not realistic.

Couple H are Southern Baptists, Couple I are atheists; therefore Couple I should not be allowed to legally marry simply because to say that they are equal to another group (Southern Baptists), is not realistic.

So we should allow the govt to dictate who can marry, who can have kids simply based upon the fact that people and couples are not equal. Don’t you think that is giving the govt far too much power? The inequality itself does not produce a compelling State interest.

Simply because a person or a couple possesses unequal traits does not in and of itself justify unequal treatment under the law. It would only be logical and constitutional if the State has a compelling interest for disallowing the couple with that particular trait from being married.

You have not shown a compelling State interest; allowing same sex marriage does not produce an overriding harm to the State; disallowing same sex marriage does not produce an overriding benefit to the State.

 

[Flaylo]

I am saying this shit once again, give them the tax rights and property rights under a civil union, I'm not against that LEAVE marriage for a man and woman since that what MARRIAGE has alway been and is, give them the tax and property rights without changing the definition of marriage. They should have NO complaints, anything other than that ids purposely advancing a homosexual agenda, not equal rights.

 

[PJC]

Not my argument at all. Births among couples that include a male and a female (or the components of those genders) comprise 100% of of the whole. To say that one group of couples (male - female), are, for repopulation purposes, equal to another group (same gender), is not realistic.

The argument you make is better suited for dropping Marriage, and civil unions all together. IMHO.

The fact is that we have an all inclusive definition of marriage. We allow old people to marry even though they have no ability to have children, we allow infertile couples to marry, we allow divorced people to remarry even though they have already failed at marriage.....we even allow black and white people to marry

Yet gays are excluded

Again, your argument is better suited for not having marriage or civil union at all.

I expressed my reasoning as to why marriage exists as a union between people's of differing genders. Because all couples cannot have, do not wish to have children, or are to old to have children misses the point.

Only the coupling between a male and a female ( or to get even more basic, the components of the two), can create population. Population is required for a government to be needed, and marriage was created so that this population had some order in that creation. An orderly population being required so that a government has a population orderly enough to be governed.

Benefits were given, not because a child exists, but, without the government intruding too much into the private lifes of the participants, because, as a group, male - female coupling has the potential of creating population. Can the same be claimed in same gender couplings?

If not, there is a clear, easily defined difference. If you want to discuss interracial marriage, that is a different discussion altogether.

By claiming “misses the point” you are using the fallacy of Argument by Dismissal. It does not miss the point whatsoever.

Group A=heterosexual fertile couples
Group B=homosexual couples
Group C=heterosexual infertile couples

Couples in Group A are allowed to marry because they can produce population.
Couples in Group B are not allowed to marry because they cannot produce population.
Couples in Group C are allowed to marry despite the fact that they cannot produce population.

Fallacy of inconsistency. Meaning it is illogical and unconstitutional.

You attempted to skirt your way around this obvious fallacy by erroneously claiming Group C is Group A. They are two separate groups for the purpose of your argument for the simple reason that as you stated, they cannot create population.

You are excluding one group based solely on the fact that they cannot create population; therefore you must (to be logically consistent) exclude the other group solely based on the fact that they cannot create population.

As for claiming that his argument is better suited for not having marriage or civil union at all; I think you are wrong. Please explain how you came to that opinion. It makes no sense to me.

 

[PJC]

I am saying this shit once again, give them the tax rights and property rights under a civil union, I'm not against that LEAVE marriage for a man and woman since that what MARRIAGE has alway been and is, give them the tax and property rights without changing the definition of marriage. They should have NO complaints, anything other than that ids purposely advancing a homosexual agenda, not equal rights.

So it is only about semantics for you. Okay. You made your point.

Your concession in that regard is cool and I thank you for that; unfortunately however it is irrelevent because the majority of the anti-gay marriage/religious far right crowd disagree with you and continue to deny gays "the tax rights and property rights under a civil union".

Peronally, the fact that gays want the word marriage does not infringe on my rights nor on anyone else's rights.

I am a firm believer in the paraphrased adage "Your rights end at my nose."

 

[Flaylo]

I am saying this shit once again, give them the tax rights and property rights under a civil union, I'm not against that LEAVE marriage for a man and woman since that what MARRIAGE has alway been and is, give them the tax and property rights without changing the definition of marriage. They should have NO complaints, anything other than that ids purposely advancing a homosexual agenda, not equal rights.

So it is only about semantics for you. Okay. You made your point.

Your concession in that regard is cool and I thank you for that; unfortunately however it is irrelevent because the majority of the anti-gay marriage/religious far right crowd disagree with you and continue to deny gays "the tax rights and property rights under a civil union".

Peronally, the fact that gays want the word marriage does not infringe on my rights nor on anyone else's rights.

I am a firm believer in the paraphrased adage "Your rights end at my nose."

marriage ain't some shit to play with, thats the problem with man today, being brainwashed by bullshit like "You can be whatever you want to be and do anything you want" well without knowledge and God leading the way you cannot, leave what is God's to God and give those homosexuals those tax and property rights, but I know they wouldn't just want that, they want their homosexuality to be legitamitzed and accepted, laws can't force that.

 

[PJC]

Again, your argument is better suited for not having marriage or civil union at all.

I expressed my reasoning as to why marriage exists as a union between people's of differing genders. Because all couples cannot have, do not wish to have children, or are to old to have children misses the point.

Only the coupling between a male and a female ( or to get even more basic, the components of the two), can create population. Population is required for a government to be needed, and marriage was created so that this population had some order in that creation. An orderly population being required so that a government has a population orderly enough to be governed.

Benefits were given, not because a child exists, but, without the government intruding too much into the private lifes of the participants, because, as a group, male - female coupling has the potential of creating population. Can the same be claimed in same gender couplings?

If not, there is a clear, easily defined difference. If you want to discuss interracial marriage, that is a different discussion altogether.

The fundamental discussion though is the government compelling government interest in treating like groups differently. In this case those groups are law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting, adults in different-sex couple differently then law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting, adults in a same-sex couple.

OK, let's go with your premise that procreation is the central aspect of Civil Marriage.

That doesn't change the fundamental question. If known infertile couples are allowed to Civilly Marry, if old people beyond child bearing years are allowed to marry, if some couples must prove infertility prior to being allowed to Civilly Marry are granted an exception to this fundamental requirement for Civil Marriage...

.........................Then what is the compelling government interest denying the same exception to members in same-sex couples?



If procreation is a requirement, but exceptions are made, then what is the compelling reason for denying the same exception to a like situated group.


For discussion purposes, OK, couples that can procreate are different then couples that can't procreate - got it. Now explain compelling government interest in not granting the same exception to a like group.



>>>>

One would be potential. A couple that is of child bearing age, but might test infertile, but, and I think we all know people that, even though they were told they could never conceive, have children. Got three children in my neighborhood born of parents that were told that they would never have children.

Second, for a different gender couple, a fertility test would need to be administered, would it not? For a same gendered couple a fertility test would never be required.

Just keep coming up with more differences than commonalities.

You are again attempting to claim that Group C (infertile heterosexual couples, old couples who can't procreate, and people who won't procreate) are actually Group A (fertile heterosexual couples who will procreate). They are not in the same group. Your argument was not about "potential". It was about the ability to create population. Now you duck and dodge, claiming "potential". I call bull crap.

Continuing to twist and contort your "logic" to claim they are the same group is disengenuous. Answer the question truthfully, sir or just honestly admit the obvious fact that your argument lacks logical consistency. The rule must apply to like groups or it is inconsistent, illogical, and unconsititutional.

And you are completely ignoring the fact that same sex couples do indeed help "create population". Your argument is full of holes and fallacies.

 

[PJC]

I am saying this shit once again, give them the tax rights and property rights under a civil union, I'm not against that LEAVE marriage for a man and woman since that what MARRIAGE has alway been and is, give them the tax and property rights without changing the definition of marriage. They should have NO complaints, anything other than that ids purposely advancing a homosexual agenda, not equal rights.

So it is only about semantics for you. Okay. You made your point.

Your concession in that regard is cool and I thank you for that; unfortunately however it is irrelevent because the majority of the anti-gay marriage/religious far right crowd disagree with you and continue to deny gays "the tax rights and property rights under a civil union".

Peronally, the fact that gays want the word marriage does not infringe on my rights nor on anyone else's rights.

I am a firm believer in the paraphrased adage "Your rights end at my nose."

marriage ain't some shit to play with, thats the problem with man today, being brainwashed by bullshit like "You can be whatever you want to be and do anything you want" well without knowledge and God leading the way you cannot, leave what is God's to God and give those homosexuals those tax and property rights, but I know they wouldn't just want that, they want their homosexuality to be legitamitzed and accepted, laws can't force that.

The fact that gay people wish to marry the person they love is not “playing with” anything. Are you making the claim that gays are incapable of love? It is impossible to love someone romantically who is the same sex? Their relationships are not valid?

Brainwashed by bullshit? So you’re claiming that Americans are not free to be whatever they want to be, and do whatever they want to do as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others?

I agree people need knowledge.

But religion and belief in gods are not necessary for everyone. I have no beef with your religious beliefs; you are free to believe in a god and to worship as you choose. Would you allow me and others the same courtesy and respect to believe that there are no gods?

If marriage belongs to a god, and I am an atheist, is my heterosexual marriage invalid in your eyes? Religion had not a single thing to do with my wedding or my marriage.

You may decide not to answer that, so I will answer it for you just in case. Civil marriage does not require religious belief. Marriage exists and has existed separate from Christianity, separate from Judaism, separate from Islam, and separate from other religions for millennia. Neither religion nor gods invented it. Mankind did.

I don’t want to give gods anything; nor should I have to.

As for your fallacious projection assuming you know what gays want; how do you know? How many gays told you they want their homosexuality to be legitimized and accepted? Or are you making an assumption based solely upon your prejudices and biases?

Try facts and logic instead.

Let me ask you; if they have the full rights and the word marriage; what tangible effect will that have on your life, sir? What rights of yours are being infringed upon, specifically?

 

[Noomi]

I am saying this shit once again, give them the tax rights and property rights under a civil union, I'm not against that LEAVE marriage for a man and woman since that what MARRIAGE has alway been and is, give them the tax and property rights without changing the definition of marriage. They should have NO complaints, anything other than that ids purposely advancing a homosexual agenda, not equal rights.

You cannot give someone the exact same rights as marriage, and not call it marriage. It doesn't work that way.

 

[PJC]

The real question is not if there is a difference, but if that difference is great enough to create a different set of laws. I contend that there are, your contention obviously is that there are not. .

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. I admit they are inequal/different; however, just because people are not the same as others does not automatically justify inequal treatment under the law. Rich people are inequal to poor people; southerners are inequal to northerners; black people are inequal to white people; we are all different from everyone else. Diversity. Does that diversity pose an overriding harm to the State if they are allowed to marry, or does the diversity present an overriding good to the State if they are not allowed to marry?