Homosexuality

[MrPopo]

I'd like to pose a question. Why does the government provide benefits to those who get married in the first place?

If you look at what the world was like back in the days when social security benefits were created, you'll get your answer. There were a lot more ways for male Americans to meet their untimely demise back then and it was a way to provide (at least a little) for their widows.

Now it's kind of an anachronism. To be honest, instead of seeing those benefits extended to same sex couples, I kind of expect them to be taken away from everyone. The current social security system is just not sustainable. That's a different thread, though.

Even throwing out the financial benefits to being married (taxes, social security, inheritance) there are still some important legal consequences to being married. The most important one I can think of off the top of my head is medical proxy rights. We'd essentially switch the word "marriage" with "legal partner" or something similar, entering into contracts that still set up these various legal statuses.

[Zing]

I'd like to pose a question. Why does the government provide benefits to those who get married in the first place?

Possibly an indirect way to encourage population growth through procreation? Contrast this to more direct methods, such as Canada's mandated year-long maternity leave and child tax benefits.

[Jrecee]

I understand your views on homosexuality... now tell me, how do you feel about polygamy? Just to get a general consensus on how you guys feel about this. I think its a decent point to bring up. If homosexuality is okay, why can't I have 4 wives?

Cute example. But polygamy can be distinguished from homosexuality in that it produces a tangible social harm. Don't believe me? Read about the Kingston sect of Mormonism and let me know if polygamy still sounds like good idea.

You are taking a massive leap to establish that as a reasoning against polygamy. Polygamy was in no way a cause of those problems.

[DinnerX]

"Homosexuals should be denied the same rights as their fellow man"

A same-sex union is only a right if one views joining with someone of the same-sex as just as valid (i.e. it isn't wrong) as joining with someone of the opposite sex. If you don't believe that a same-sex union can be a legitimate marriage, then you don't believe you are abridging anyone's rights.

Let me put it differently. What is a "marriage" (or whatever else we might call it)? Is a marriage a union of a man and a woman? Is a marriage a union of a man and a group of women or vice versa? Is a marriage the union of a group of adults? Is a marriage the union of two adults? People may have a right to marriage, but what exactly is a "marriage"? One's definition of "marriage" changes what a right to "marriage" entails.

[Jrecee]

Which is precisely why the government should have no hand in such matters. It's as if you had to get a certificate from the government to establish that you're in love, or that you're officially jewish or catholic. Defining something that is deeply up to personal beliefs, and using that definition to give or deny rights to millions who will never agree, is rediculous.

[DinnerX]

Which is precisely why the government should have no hand in such matters. It's as if you had to get a certificate from the government to establish that you're in love, or that you're officially jewish or catholic. Defining something that is deeply up to personal beliefs, and using that definition to give or deny rights to millions who will never agree, is rediculous.

Like I said earlier, getting the government out would be difficult, but could theoretically solve this impasse. If they are out, nobody's particular beliefs are stepped on or supported. It could create other problems though. I don't know.

[dedalusdedalus]

I understand your views on homosexuality... now tell me, how do you feel about polygamy? Just to get a general consensus on how you guys feel about this. I think its a decent point to bring up. If homosexuality is okay, why can't I have 4 wives?

Cute example. But polygamy can be distinguished from homosexuality in that it produces a tangible social harm. Don't believe me? Read about the Kingston sect of Mormonism and let me know if polygamy still sounds like good idea.

You are taking a massive leap to establish that as a reasoning against polygamy. Polygamy was in no way a cause of those problems.

Um, no. The practice of polygamy (I'm leaving polyandry out of the discussion for now) causes a shortage of brides and a glut of bachelors. An excess number of bachelors leads to social problems. Of course, these social problems caused by excess bachelors will manifest differently on a case by case basis - sex selective abortion in China, for example, has led to increased trafficking of women; in the Kingston sect, it's led to a practice whereby the sect expels its own young men to reduce the glut of bachelors and make brides available to older and more established members of the sect.

For the sake of comprehensiveness, I'd admit that in very extreme circumstances polygamy could make sense. For example, let's pretend that something managed to kill off a large proportion of the male population, and the new male-to-female ratio could suddenly support polygamous arrangements without creating a glut of bachelors. As another example, polyandry is practiced by certain Himalayan cultures as a method of population control.

However, if you're arguing that polygamy is harmless, the burden of proof should be on the proponent to point to an extraordinary circumstance that would not produce a glut of bachelors and its resultant social harms.

Which is precisely why the government should have no hand in such matters. It's as if you had to get a certificate from the government to establish that you're in love, or that you're officially jewish or catholic. Defining something that is deeply up to personal beliefs, and using that definition to give or deny rights to millions who will never agree, is rediculous.

Agreed with your point in general, but spelling "ridiculous" as "rediculous," is ridiculous.

Edit: Further reading material
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_ ... mentalism)

[Duke.Togo]

Interesting discussion. I agree that the government has no business in sanctioning marriages. The practice was instituted in the US after the end of the Civil War in order to prevent the intermarriage of the "white" and "black" races, so its origin is simply a tool to discriminate.

It is unfortunate that the unlimited right to contract was not enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

[Jrecee]

If someone wants multiple girlfriends, and those girlfriends are ok with it, the government can't, and shouldn't, do anything about it. Marriage may be considered a step further than dating or "going out" for most, but it has different meanings for different people. Basically, restricting polygamy by the lawful definition of marriage, is to say that if you dont care about the legal version of marriage, you can still do whatever you want by getting the blessing of your religious institution. It doesn't really stop anything, it simply descriminates against personal choices.

As I said, I dont believe the government should be involved in marriage, period. But if they insist on doing so, they must give equal rights to all, in essence giving people the exact freedoms they would have if the government was not involved at all.

[sabrage]

descriminates

Stop that!