Gay marriage: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » Gay marriage » Gay marriage

Gay marriage
Should be banned? Nicley though

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Gay marriage

jaoman
On the Road...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 13, 2004
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Total Topics: 82
Total Posts: 1426

Posted 06/13/09 - 08:42 PM:	#11
swstephe wrote: Even though the OP Author, (sorry to talk in 3rd person), has bowed out, something interesting just occurred to me. Sorry if this will seem like derailing, but bare with me -- I want to restate that "gay marriage" has nothing to do with religion or gender or sexual orientation. If it had nothing to do with gender and sexual orientation, it'd be called plain marriage and it wouldn't be an issue. The gay element is unavoidable. swstephe wrote: Last night, I watched a video by a Harvard Law professor who studied the economic trends of a married couple with 2 kids in America over the past generation. There is has been a huge economic shift from single-income families to dual-income families. In the hopes of increasing their own standard of living by adding an extra income, the net effect is to shift the economic and social structure fundamentally. That sounds fascinating. Was it a documentary? Could you give me the name please. swstephe wrote: Housing prices have nearly doubled, after adjusting for inflation, to meet this new availability of funds, for example. Last I heard the housing bubble, in the US, has been burst. In some places in Georgia, houses have been going for pennies, or close there to. Has there been a monumental economic recovery that I haven't heard of? swstephe wrote: I think one thing that wasn't stated, but I was thinking about -- it is no longer economically feasible for someone to remain single any more. Married people became the "middle" of the middle-class. You have to earn about double the average income for your area to be able to purchase a single house because that is what married couples get. The same kind of trends happen in health coverage, taxes and other non-flexible income. I made the connection last night -- this is probably the real reason for the need for gay marriage. I asked my best friend from high school, (who is gay and married to his partner), why he feels marriage is necessary. He said it is for the benefits -- to be able to share medical coverage, incomes, and to justify inheriting wealth, rights and privileges through sickness and death. All the benefits that a single human being can no longer afford without living like a college student. Secular society has basically told everyone that they have to get married or suffer in poverty. There is no reason why two people cannot decide to share incomes and live in a joint house. Inheritance of wealth and the authority for medical decisions can be granted through various forms of wills. The only inflexible point, as far as I know, is shared medical coverage. That, however, is not an argument for or against gay marriage. It is an argument that perhaps I should be able to have the right to extend my coverage to one or more people of my choosing. Such an argument can perhaps be made. Better yet, we can make the argument for nationalized health care. swstephe wrote: One of the "hardships" of the move to dual-income standards is the tax hit. Dual-incomes that file jointly are treated as a bigger, wealthier, combined entity, so their tax rate goes up, (despite smaller benefits). I'm very skeptical of this claim. Can you provide a reference? I've googled marriage benefits and they all mention taxation benefits. If what you say is true, though, wouldn't that be a discouragement of marriage in general. That seems unlikely. swstephe wrote: With polygamy, it allows people to combine income and to avoid the "mandatory divorce" that is implicit in marriage break-ups. I disagree with this point. The divorce is sought because the partners are not satisfied living with each other and want to pursue other relationships, excluding the divorced partner. This rejection would not change if polygamous relationships were to become approved. Are you proposing that we encourage people to stay together in unhappy unions? That's rather cruel.
"With no relation to class or social background, whether it suits them or not, people yearn for a dream. Sustained by a dream, hurt by a dream, revived by a dream, killed by a dream. And even after being abandoned by a dream, it continues to smolder from the bottom of one's heart... probably until the verge of death. A man should envision such a lifetime once. A life spent as a martyr to the god named "dream." - Kentaro Miura

throng
Profester.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 12, 2008
Location: Downunder.

Total Topics: 43
Total Posts: 808

Posted 06/13/09 - 10:18 PM:	#12
swstephe wrote: Even though the OP Author, (sorry to talk in 3rd person), has bowed out, something interesting just occurred to me. Sorry if this will seem like derailing, but bare with me -- I want to restate that "gay marriage" has nothing to do with religion or gender or sexual orientation. Last night, I watched a video by a Harvard Law professor who studied the economic trends of a married couple with 2 kids in America over the past generation. There is has been a huge economic shift from single-income families to dual-income families. In the hopes of increasing their own standard of living by adding an extra income, the net effect is to shift the economic and social structure fundamentally. Housing prices have nearly doubled, after adjusting for inflation, to meet this new availability of funds, for example. I think one thing that wasn't stated, but I was thinking about -- it is no longer economically feasible for someone to remain single any more. Married people became the "middle" of the middle-class. You have to earn about double the average income for your area to be able to purchase a single house because that is what married couples get. The same kind of trends happen in health coverage, taxes and other non-flexible income. I made the connection last night -- this is probably the real reason for the need for gay marriage. I asked my best friend from high school, (who is gay and married to his partner), why he feels marriage is necessary. He said it is for the benefits -- to be able to share medical coverage, incomes, and to justify inheriting wealth, rights and privileges through sickness and death. All the benefits that a single human being can no longer afford without living like a college student. Secular society has basically told everyone that they have to get married or suffer in poverty. Given this problem, there are two obvious solutions -- first, is to prohibit married women from working and let the economy collapse for a while, (which would probably make a lot of religious types very happy), and the second is to allow for gay marriage and polygamy, (in either direction). One of the "hardships" of the move to dual-income standards is the tax hit. Dual-incomes that file jointly are treated as a bigger, wealthier, combined entity, so their tax rate goes up, (despite smaller benefits). Allowing for gay marriage means they will also generate taxes at higher tax brackets. Same go for polygamous relationships, which would finally be able to gain ground on wealthier dual-income families. The benefit to the community is greater income and fewer cases of people needing social services, (due to greater internal family resources). With polygamy, it allows people to combine income and to avoid the "mandatory divorce" that is implicit in marriage break-ups. It is a lot to swallow, so I'll stop for now. Thanks, that clears up my quandry about making a fuss with fair reason. Funny though how marriage is basically a financially driven survival mechanizm now days, yet huge extravagance is usually the order of the special day. I find I'm not actually able to make lifelong committment with all encompassing honesty, however if there's enough monetary benefit it might be a viable lie. Gosh - quite a debarkle. I feel there is less and less substance to the institution and motive is greatly varied. How can one tell if intention is true or merely profitable?
I know that I don't know, so I don't know if I do.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3305

Posted 06/14/09 - 04:16 AM:	#13
jaoman wrote: If it had nothing to do with gender and sexual orientation, it'd be called plain marriage and it wouldn't be an issue. The gay element is unavoidable. It is called "marriage". I haven't seen a "straight marriage" license. The distinction "gay marriage", rather than just "marriage", is trying to draw out a special case. it really is more properly "same-sex marriage", but why should it be different than same-species or same-race marriages, same-religion, same-culture, same-language, same-nationality, etc. Marriage is essentially a contract between two consenting adults until the distinctions were drawn up for limits, (preventing child marriages or incestuous marriages). jaoman wrote: That sounds fascinating. Was it a documentary? Could you give me the name please. It was from my "Brasscheck" mailing list: http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/642.html jaoman wrote: Last I heard the housing bubble, in the US, has been burst. In some places in Georgia, houses have been going for pennies, or close there to. Has there been a monumental economic recovery that I haven't heard of? The lecture was from March, 2007, I believe, so they hadn't seen the last 2 years at the time. I don't know what things are like back in America as I haven't been back since 2003. jaoman wrote: There is no reason why two people cannot decide to share incomes and live in a joint house. Inheritance of wealth and the authority for medical decisions can be granted through various forms of wills. The only inflexible point, as far as I know, is shared medical coverage. That, however, is not an argument for or against gay marriage. It is an argument that perhaps I should be able to have the right to extend my coverage to one or more people of my choosing. Such an argument can perhaps be made. Better yet, we can make the argument for nationalized health care. I was told, (although I don't have personal experience), that hospitals will only admit relatives, but exclude same-sex partner. Inheritance of property can be handled through wills, but inheritance through companies, like pension and health coverage for surviving spouses is denied. Tax impact of inheritance also differs. I agree, however, that it isn't so much an issue of marriage, but seems like a way to leverage the term "marriage" to force coverage from companies. But having worked for big company HR departments, I know there will be ways around that, too. jaoman wrote: I'm very skeptical of this claim. Can you provide a reference? I've googled marriage benefits and they all mention taxation benefits. If what you say is true, though, wouldn't that be a discouragement of marriage in general. That seems unlikely. I got it from the video. I thought it made sense. You get more income, you pay more taxes. I've heard accountants say, "it is bad to marry". jaoman wrote: I disagree with this point. The divorce is sought because the partners are not satisfied living with each other and want to pursue other relationships, excluding the divorced partner. This rejection would not change if polygamous relationships were to become approved. Are you proposing that we encourage people to stay together in unhappy unions? That's rather cruel. That's true, if the reason for divorce was incompatibility, polygamy wouldn't change anything. Living in a polygamous society out here, I found that there are a few problems that get solved by allowing people to continue to share economic benefits with each other even after reaching relationship problems. I'm only talking about the "forced divorce", where someone chooses divorce for a preferred relationship when they could have afforded multiple relationships. I've seen couples break up because one was disabled and the other had "needs". Sometimes it can be worked out so people will take care of their own mess instead of requiring society to legislate a lawsuit by default.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

jaoman
On the Road...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 13, 2004
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Total Topics: 82
Total Posts: 1426

Posted 06/15/09 - 12:04 PM:	#14
swstephe wrote: It is called "marriage". I haven't seen a "straight marriage" license. The distinction "gay marriage", rather than just "marriage", is trying to draw out a special case. it really is more properly "same-sex marriage", but why should it be different than same-species or same-race marriages, same-religion, same-culture, same-language, same-nationality, etc. Marriage is essentially a contract between two consenting adults until the distinctions were drawn up for limits, (preventing child marriages or incestuous marriages). Why two consenting adults? And why can't I marry my twelve year old cousin Alice? Once you limit child marriages or incestuous marriages, it's not “just marriage” anymore. You already need to add codicils to the term. Our conversation centers around either removing or adding a codicil from/to the term. That codicil being: opposite genders. Personally, I'd argue that the codicil always been there. Same sex love isn't new but it's never entered the field of marriage. It's been an unspoken rule. Now, the issue has come up, so many want it to be made explicit. Your position, on the other hand, advocates that the codicil has never been there and shouldn't be there because there's no real, practical reason for it to be there. Now I gave you a reason, stating that same sex couples lack the utility of marriage; therefore, they have no need for it's benefits. To which, your response has been that singles can't afford to live in our society; therefore, the choice I'm forcing onto homosexuals, by opposing same-sex marriage, is between coupling with a partner they cannot love or poverty. (Then, of course, you pointed out that married couples pay higher tax brackets, kind of kicking yourself in the shins, but anyway...). Your argument, if I've understood it correctly, rests on the point that gay singles will not marry the opposite gender. I'm afraid, you cannot get away from sexual orientation, as part of the issue, just by re-framing it in economics. If their sexual orientation was different we wouldn't have this problem. Thank you for the link. The lecture was fascinating. About a year after it happened, oil prices shot up in the US. The result was that all those middle class families balancing on the razor's edge of financial ruin went bottoms up, defaulting on a whole lot of I-own-you notes which had been used to pay for a whole shit load of other things. The ripple effect set off the crumble of the whole lot of other things, which had been passing around those notes between themselves instead of capital. The current economic crisis is a result. Among the consequences was the tanking of the housing market, which had been leaching off the two income families. It's pretty badly bruised now. I do not know to what extent it will recover; however, to the best of my knowledge, it is currently much more reasonable. Even granting, though, the only point on which I can see your argument holds is health care. I can't think of anything else which a same sex couple cannot account for through the right paperwork and an agreement to combine their incomes. Housing expenses for same sex couples are offset by the fact that they aren't looking for housing near good schools and will not have to pay for tuition and childcare (same sex adoption is another conversation altogether). And the same thing is true the medical coverage Same sex couples lack a great many of the expenses native to male/female couples. Economically, I would imagine this would go a long way toward offsetting the extra health insurance costs. So, they don't really need the apparently nonexistent benefits. swstephe wrote: I was told, (although I don't have personal experience), that hospitals will only admit relatives, but exclude same-sex partner. Actually, I looked it up before posting. There is a document called a living-will which authorizes a unrelated party, like a friend or a lesbian lover, with medical authority. swstephe wrote: That's true, if the reason for divorce was incompatibility, polygamy wouldn't change anything. Living in a polygamous society out here, I found that there are a few problems that get solved by allowing people to continue to share economic benefits with each other even after reaching relationship problems. I'm only talking about the "forced divorce", where someone chooses divorce for a preferred relationship when they could have afforded multiple relationships. I've seen couples break up because one was disabled and the other had "needs". Sometimes it can be worked out so people will take care of their own mess instead of requiring society to legislate a lawsuit by default. That's a social issue rather than a legal one. There's no reason why the two might not agree that on having partners outside of marriage. One doesn't need paperwork to take on more sexual and emotional partners.
"With no relation to class or social background, whether it suits them or not, people yearn for a dream. Sustained by a dream, hurt by a dream, revived by a dream, killed by a dream. And even after being abandoned by a dream, it continues to smolder from the bottom of one's heart... probably until the verge of death. A man should envision such a lifetime once. A life spent as a martyr to the god named "dream." - Kentaro Miura

Nesu
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 29, 2009
Location: Portugal

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 3

Posted 10/29/09 - 01:53 PM:	#15
If you love your partner, and I'm not talking about sex, I mean really love him/her, you should be able to marry that person, not because of God or religion, because you should be given the right to make a family with that person and have the same benefits as all the other families have. In the Portuguese constitution, it says that two people can get married as long as they are both adults and they both desire it, it doesn't say anything about sex differences, still gay people can't marry in Portugal, and that's bull... I hope that changes soon because everyone should have the same liberties. Edited by Incision on 10/29/09 - 03:57 PM. Reason: punctuation

davidasearles
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 15, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 135

Posted 10/29/09 - 02:53 PM:	#16
jaoman wrote: Why two consenting adults? And why can't I marry my twelve year old cousin Alice? Marriage is a contract. Only those capable of consenting to the contact may be married. For the protection of children states have set the minimum age of consent to enter into marriage. (in some limited instances states have allowed parents or courts to assent in the child's "bests interests" although the child is below the usual age of personal consent. For this same reason (not being capable) a comatose person or a person under duress cannot give consent to marry.

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 10/29/09 - 03:59 PM:	#17
Go figure. I still disagree with everybody's idea. A. The discusssion will never go anywhere until you truly sit down and examine why individuals decry that somebody else must determine their independent point of view. Come back to the subject after you decide to ignore the 3rd party. That way a true discussion between individuals might actually happen. B. One of the reasons why I prefer the ideology of 'nodes' over that of 'words' is very simple. As a node - it is quite a bit easier to know the terminology in lieu of cutting things apart. The marketing research pertaining to how much more spending two people make when they share goods becomes soo much less pertinent. The legal document even less so. Especially when you compare basic 'band together' psychological effects for the advancement of a species.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

davidasearles
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 15, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 135

Posted 10/29/09 - 07:42 PM:	#18
Cadrache wrote: 'nodes' over that of 'words' is very simple. As a node - it is quite a bit easier to know the terminology in lieu of cutting things apart. But you are using words to explain it. What"s that all about?

Odin
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 09, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 214

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 10/29/09 - 07:49 PM:	#19
I don't really see how its an issue if gay 'couples' are afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples who are married. I don't see why changing the name of it is relevant. Call it a banana for all I care, but personally I'd rather it not be considered marriage if anything because marriage carries more powerful obligations related to the perpetuation of the human species and creation of new life in the image of the parents, which holds special significance.

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 10/29/09 - 08:05 PM:	#20
You merely decode them as words. I speak my own private language. The trick to this is to know how to manipulate the subjective physical aspect of the nodes. A child goes from 'gha!' to GWawaaaaaaaa! in most cases when the mere 'I want milk' is incorrectly decoded by the parent. Banno had an awesome quotation about language and asserting in his huge objective/subjective thread. Back to decoding nodes/words. The last few arguments for gay marriage has never consituted discussion. With discussion - the decoding sequence becomes evident by way of rote. If you pay attention to the actual exchange of action-to-decodence then you would note that no alterations are being put forth. In this case rote is in the classification of having the action not cohere to the decoding sequence. In such cases either agreement has occured or the actual use of language is not met. The flow of words(not nodes in this case) denotes that we are not following a confirmation of information. They truly are attempting to discuss the subject. Hence the first post of mine in this thread. I was hoping to only post once... but oh well. Edited by Cadrache on 10/29/09 - 08:32 PM
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.