take 10 males , atleast one would be gay and then atelast 2 would be bisexual
there are alot more gay people than you think..
actually bisexuality is alot higher of a number.. there are alot of straight people who have had sex with the same gender. so you have to factor that in as well, and it becomes 25-30% of the population has done something homosexual.
it's also not in the state's interest to free slaves or grant inter-racial marriage in history either according to that logic. Procreation also has nothing to do with a states interest, if they do only make as you say upto 1%, then it doesn't matter if they don't procreate.
But what about hetero couples that don't want to raise children, or simply can't have children? They surely shouldn't be allowed to marry! Or the gay couples that want to have children (which they CAN just not in the traditional way!)? They should get the "benefit package" as you put it. Face it, marriage isn't always about kids. If that's what it's about to you, then fine, get married and have kids. Leave my civil rights out of it.
How small a minority is should have no bearing on how fairly they are treated in comparison to the rest of society. If black people only made up .3% of the population in the US, should we take away benefits for them too? Or maybe we could single out gingers (people with red hair) and take away their marriage benefits, regardless of whether or not they represent a big segment of the population or not. Equality is all or nothing, if ANY group, even minuscule loses benefits, then we aren't equal.
According to your logic of "marriage is instituted because presumably the couple will produce children," then we shouldn't grant marriages to women who are barren or elderly people. Seriously dude. Put yourself in our shoes for once and realize we just want to be treated equally. Not better, not worse. Equally.
At the point when you cite the state's definition to "disprove" gay marriage, you assume that the state can never be wrong. I don't think I need to point out the fallacy.
This isn't a "different" perspective as you claim. This is just all the old arguments that have been debunked before being presented as "facts" to try and prevent me from achieving the same rights you have. I would tackle each point you make, but really that's already been done time and time again by others. The fact is, marriage is about the happiness of the people involved. To deny someone else the pursuit of that is unconstitutional.
dude it's not about what the state gets out of it.. it's about us.. me and my man pay taxes for schools and social security that's for the benefit of mainly hetero couples, me and my dude have to pay into separate health plans instead of just paying into one... me and my dude had problems with the hospital when i got sick and the administration wouldn't let him see me, because we're not "related"... come on it's so much more than the benefit to the state.
wow....please get your g.e.d. before making a vlog..you are exactly what is wrong with america. uneducated,unelightened, patethic waste. leave poeple to do as they please.. and marriage benefits are there to keep couples together. holy shit..there's no way someone as dumb as you is married..more than likely in the closet without anyone and ragging about a subject you'll know nothing about due to not having anyone to be involved with in the 1st place.wether gay or straight.idiot...
If we are Democrats then surely we all believe in equality. Then if this is the case equality must surely be for everyone not just for those who we deem fit, is that logical enough. Your bigotry is not even that articulate or well thought out you claim to know what the majority think with no proof at all. I do not care for the acceptance from heterosexual people or crave it. But I do care that people are treated equally before the law whether the bigots like it or not.
yup very well put my friend. Yes marriage is a 'package of benefits', but also a set of legal privileges established by the state which centuries of experience PROVES is most beneficial to the interests of the state and society as a whole.Also, the particular form of monogamous marriage which is privileged in our society has its roots in practices and ideas which proceeded the modern western nation/state. Before insisting on radical changes gay advocates MUST prove how this change helps EVERYONE
Homosexual couples can't produce more children among themselves, that is true, but that doesn't mean they cannot effectively raise a child. Homosexual couples will be more prone to adopt children, taking them off the burden of the state, and providing a better home for them than an orphanage could.
There is also artificial insemination which would allow a gay couple, at least a female gay couple, the ability to give birth and raise a child.
Then logically, heterosexual couples who are sterile, too old, or chooses not to have children should be forced to:
1) get pregnant
2) adopt children
3) get a divorce
If said heterosexual couple do not comply to one of those choices within a federally/religiously approved period of time, then they should be fined or imprisoned for breach of contract.
Oh, marriage is a contract and breaking it should have consequences.
There is a reason he doesn't want to talk about the specifics of that case. Because that case laid out in detail specifically why it is wrong to deny gay people the right to marry. If he talked about that case he would be presenting solid arguments against his point of view - so he ignores it.
So? Your argument is against gay marriage because they can not reproduce and therefore threatens the states longevity. Do you believe that sterile couples, or couples that do not wish to have children, or elderly couples who are no longer able to reproduce should not get married also? They would also fall under the same category as gay people. When two people marry the state does not ask them before hand if they plan on having children. In the states eyes it is just a contract.
I'm guessing you're one of those people who thinks that if we grant marriage rights to homosexuals, the human population will cease to exist... That argument amuses me.
So do you think it's fair that heterosexuals get marriage benefits when homosexuals dont? What about infertile couples? Isn't it better to adopt a child anyway given that there are thousands of orphans who need a home? Also, just because something isn't popular with the majority doesn't mean it's right. Look at interracial marriage. Back in the 60s and 70s it was looked at as obscene, disgusting, vile. But preventing it was wrong do you not agree?
I can't even believe what I heard from your mouth.
Issues I had with your (and excuse my rudeness) fucking idiotic standpoint:
You defined state marriage between a straight couple as insuring the continuation of family, by having children and whatnot. Okay, firstly, then you just eliminated those who cannot bare children. My friend can never have a child, so she shouldn't be able to get married? And what you're basically saying is by allowing gay marriage, the state won't continue...
@DerekVids No logical reason to grant same sex marriage to homosexual couples?
Excuse me, but the most logical reason I can see is that in our Constitution it says "All men are created equal". And considering that is written in ink, you can't really change that little fact. It isn't "All men (but gay men) are created equal". So, don't act all dense on the situation and say, "I see no logical reason". If you were a logical person, you definitely would.
@DerekVids Finally, who the FUCK is anyone to limit a minority's rights? It has never been fair to single out a smaller group because your views are different. Look what we did (and this argument is overused, but damn true) to the blacks. We tried to limit their rights. It's sickening that America had to go through that kind of bigotry once... let alone several other times.
@DerekVids Bottom line... if you don't agree with gay marriage, then don't get one. However, no one has the right to judge someone's life based on whom they love. No one has the right to DENY love. No one has the right to come into MY house and say my love isn't my family. I see these conservative views as just glorified bigotry.
Gay marriage isn't going to bring this nation down. People aren't going to line up to be gay. Marriages of heteros aren't going to end. JUST GET OVER IT!!!
The Homosexual couples who want children... are there for when heterosexual couples fail to do their job and get rid of their children... The number of Homosexuals is not going to hurt the States population.. There will always be Heterosexuals producing numbers... But is that what all we are? Just numbers for a country? I believe in something quite bigger than just being part of a state...
Good vid. In response to your "no logical reason" for the state's advocacy of Gay Marriage: The leftists who largely populate state and federal government have a deep ideological antipathy towards Judeo-Christian values; so if the cornerstone of those values can be made meaningless, it's a good day.
If, according to Judge Walker's decision, marriage is a fundamental right, next in line should be polygamists, then incest.... really, there's now no logical reason for denying this right at all.
So since a gay couple can not have a kid, we should also prohibit the marriages of the elderly and the barron or sterile. If you can't have kids then theres no reason to marry? I may have misunderstand but I'm pretty sure this is what you were saying boils down to..
LOL. Omg, I stopped taking this guy after reading "two sense" in his description. Marriage has always been about the exchange of property from one party to another. This is a STATE marriage, not a religious one. There really isn't any point to your ramble and quite frankly, you make yourself seem so high and mighty when in reality, you're a pathetic hyppocrite. "If your response is intelligent"... Wouldn't you have to be an intelligent person in order to process and respond to said intelligence?
The state this, the state that, the state will recognize what benefits the state, yadda yadda yadda.
When did we become a bunch of communists?
I for one, and many Libertarians like me, feel that the state does not have any constitutional right to regulate marriage in the first place. But, since the state IS regulating marriage, there can be an argument made that there is a federal constitutional requirement to recognize gay couples in the same way that they recognize str8 couples.
Your video is up here, so this is your post of entertaining idiocy for your own and others amusement.....hmmm good job.... I concur this makes me laugh at you....
1) being able to post something on youtube
2) knowing how to turn the camera on
3) breathing......although u seem to have issues with that...(hint I know what I am refering to so yeah lol)
Your argument that it is appeasing a minority at the risk of "upsetting" a majority is flawed in that it sidesteps the issue of whether or not it is morally acceptable to deny benefits to one segment of the population due to circumstances outside of their control. It certainly upset a majority of the population to give minorities the right to vote, that doesn't mean that it wasn't the right thing to do. I'm also curious to know how this issue actually effects you on a day to day basis.
Marriage has very little or even nothing to do with ensuring the continuation of a state. The primary thing needed to ensure this is reproduction. Marriage is not needed for this function at all. Children are raised in many different types of homes.
I think some others summed it up very well, but I must reiterate the point: this is an extremely flawed argument, not only from the perspective of political philosophy (e.g.: how you refer to the well-being of the State), but equally from the perspective of the history of marriage law and custom. Your argument, partially based in social conservatism, is a great attempt at logic; yet, it falls short (mostly, because social conservatism is altogether illogical).
I think you're missing several of the key points of marriage as a state institution, having nothing to do directly with having children. Having a recognized legal partner is of interest to the state in cases of property, possession, debt, medical decisions and inheritance. A spouse can make medical decisions if their husband or wife is incapable of making those decisions, or for inhertitance be the recipient of property or estate upon death, also life insurance benefits.
boy this is dissappointing if this is the product our colleges are putting out these days
flaws and lies throughout the entire video
most importantly that gays make up 1/3 of 1%... ??? U didn't do your homeowork before you posted this one... But the video does demonstrate you are a bigot, like in the way you say Hom-o sex-u-al...
I just went back and read all the comments here, AFTER making my post of course. I apologize for reiterating previous arguments. I do have a question now though. Are you trying to imply that it is only possible for healthy child-raising to occur with heterosexual couples, and is utterly impossible with homosexual ones? 'Cause if so, that just ain't true. Research shows that kids from either type of family turn out about the same. Just 'cause someone is straight, doesn't mean they're moral.
Or would make good parents. And vice versa. Just 'cause someone is gay doesn't automatically make them immoral, or potentially unfit parents. Morality doesn't discriminate based on sexual orientation. It varies from individual to individual. Therefore, sexual orientation should not be the basis of social discrimination. If you must discriminate, do it 'cause you KNOW the party is deserving of it, not because you THINK everyone in an entire group falls into the same exact catagory.
1) Not all straight couples want or are able to have kids, yet can still get hitched.
2) Plenty of homosexual couples want or do have kids. And these couples that do have a family of their own did not get there by accident. Excluding cases where the kids came from previous "straight" relationships, it takes a tremendous effort for a same-sex couple to have kid(s). So you know they're wanted. Don't they deserve rights/protections too?
Clearly a marriage license should be issued only to couples upon the birth of their first child and should be revoked when their youngest child reaches the age of 18. Everything else is a waste of taxpayer's money. At least if your reasoning had any basis in reality.
Then the state wouldn't be encouraging a stable home environment prior to the arrival of the first child. Nest building is incentivized only by granting marriage rights even before the first child arrives, obviously. And revocation? LOL. That would only have the perverse incentive of delaying child-bearing for as long as it is biologically possible and for as long as it is fiscally beneficial. You would be encouraging siblings spaced 18 years apart. I suggest you get back to reality.
i am also glad that you are attempting to argue from the state's point of view; however, your argument is weak. Points: 1. Homosexuals can't reproduce
2. we shouldn't try to give rights to minority groups if it angers the majority. You seem like you might be a smart guy, but point 1 is stupid, and point 2 is unamerican. But please, try and give an argument from the state why a stable same sex marriage is unfit for raising adopted children. And why America should be less American.
When did marriage all of a sudden become just a bond of two people who just create more children? Tons of heterosexual couples choose to have abortions or not even have a child.
You are confusing "generative love" with literally having children. But all this love means is that you do something to contribute to the well being of the next generation. Generative love is definitely one of the main human purposes of marriage. The other big one is "companionable love," the special blending of the affections and interests of two individuals. The next big purpose of marriage relates to property rights, a secular prerogative of the state. Gays can pass all three norms.
gays can raise children, its called adoption. and since when is america about ganging up on the minority. If we thought this way would women or blacks have the same rights as they do today if we stayed on this line of thought?
the LGBT community makes up about 10-15% of the population.
I don't see the difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals. Love is the same and it should be treated the same. If you give stuff to one couple, you should give it to all couples. If you don't believe that, there's nothing I can say to make you believe it. Oh well. I will say I appreciate you sharing your opinion and basing it on YOUR VIEWS, not the views of religious dogma or whatever.
I respect your refreshingly logical approach, but your argument is very flawed. Would you ever dream of allowing the state to stop infertile heterosexual couples from marrying, because it would produce no offspring? So we should assume that the state supports marriage largely because it has a good stabilizing effect.
The ultra religious right was against: 1) Women's Right to vote in 1919, 2) Freedom of Slaves until the enactment of the Emancipation Proclamation by Abraham Lincoln, 3) The 15th Amendment giving Blacks the right to Vote in 1870. And were was the Church in 1941 when 11,000,000 Jews, Poles, gays, Russians and gypsies were slaughtered in Germany.....they looked the other way. My point is that the Religious far Right, does not always get it right !
We should not forget that the Evangelical Christians, the Church and social conservatives, were vehemently opposed to Inter-Racial marriage between Blacks and Whites, until the supreme court of CA in Perez vs. Sharp of 1948, ruled it Unconstitutional to ban whites and blacks from marriage. Did the Sanctity of Marriage collapse, did America become perverse, did it compromise family values as Christians claimed...No it did NOT !! Their fear of the unfamiliar was reversed
The constitution is for all. IT says ALL are created Equal. The reason the constitution exist is to help protect the monority from the majority. you can not offer spical rights and benefits to some and deny them to all.
If you read the Declaration of Independence you realize that all MEN are created equal and that means only males not females or children when they are speaking of females and children as well as males they use words such as people and mankind in the text. In addition the preamble
or statute explanatory of the reasons for its enactment and the objects sought to be accomplished. Generally, a preamble is a declaration by the legislature of the reasons for the passage of the statute and is helpful in the interpretation of any ambiguities within the statute to which it is prefixed. It has been held HOWEVER TO NOT BE AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE ACT, AND NEITHER ENLARGES NOR CONFERS POWERS.
Now by your reasoning, there is no logical reason for the state to grant marriage to homosexuals because they cannot reproduce for "the longevity of the state."
So how can marriage be allowed for heterosexual couples who are either far beyond their child-bearing years or sterile? They cannot fulfill this service to the state and therefore by your own logic should not be allowed to marry.
Double bravo! I'm happy my federal taxes that are being directed to liberal universities are not corrupting all minds. Keep up the good work and stay on the march for conservatism.
you have no idea what real conservatism is. a REAL conservative wouldn't oppose gay marriage just because it goes against his religious beliefs. you guys are NEO conservatives.
Ummm yea... did you even watch the video? Or did you just pull out your trusty liberal thesaurus and blindly point to words in order to concoct this master piece of a comment?
libertarian= no government intervention. same with real conservatives. you're confusing a neocon with a conservative. neocons are the ones who oppose things based on their religious beliefs. if you dont even know what a libertarian is, then i suggest you dont try to argue.
Well, skylancer, since you're the expert and you so easily categorize people as neocon's or conservatives yet throw a short little definition on libertarian's, who happen to really have the broadest definition of any group (thus really cop out on defining any morals as a group) who do you suggest will determine what's right and what's wrong if not the people thru government via laws? If we don't define marriage between man & woman, what's to stop man marrying a child in the future?
I think libertarian's are around because they're uncomfortable with the boundaries of law ie someone telling them their abhorrent behavior is wrong. This is a Christian nation and biblical principles do guide us, whether or not you like that. It's just a cold hard fact that everyone wants to deny.
i agree, this is a primarily christian country. that doesn't mean christianity should affect our laws. lets not turn this into a religious debate, but imagine if a muslim wanted to incorporate a law that you were against, but it was supported by muslims. would you be happy with that? thats how i feel about christianity affecting our laws. cmon dude, this is freedom 101, basic stuff
This is where we disagree. We disagree with the "separation of church and state" argument. This has been taken out of context and changed over time. The reason this needs to be a religious debate is because it's the only place where morals are concrete. Post modernism has attempted to change this but there's a majority of us that think morals must not "evolve".
I think it's very simple to dispel the Muslim issue. We are Christian, not Muslim - period.
"we are christian, not muslim - period" that doesnt answer my question, it was a hypothetical one. you're avoiding a hypothetical question because you know your response would make you look like a hypocrite. as to the morals, i'm an atheist and i consider myself a very moral person. you should know that society sets the morals, not religion.
I have no problem answering any question and I'm not a hypocrite regardless what you think. I have limited space to answer and a lot of thoughts running thru my head. It is no surprise to me that I find yet another youtube atheist. Society is incapable of setting morals that are decent. Would you like to life next to the Aztecs and tell me how that works out? I've got about 10 debates going on at once so just be blunt and forward with your questions. It's the way I like it.
oversimplifying something to the point where it isnt even a relevant answer isn't "blunt and forward". and i'm not a "youtube atheist" im simply a person who has no religion arguing with you on youtube.
I won't get into a religious argument with you because I've been down that road too many times on youtube. You're in a much different place than the majority of American's are so I guess it boils down to who wins in an election. I don't think that'll ever change. As much as atheists like to manipulate stats, people embrace religion for a reason and always will. There is a moral law giver and He is not man.
no, i agree. i don't have anything against religion, it gives people hope and can even make people strive to be better. the problem lies with where they draw the line. when peoples beliefs cross over to affect other people, when they start making their beliefs part of the LAW. that's what i'm against.
Uhhh, you'll have to start with our Declaration of Independance if you want to start that argument, dingleberry. You can't be that ignorant. Please study your history before making a foolish statement. Our founders were rooted in religion and weaved in through the law. Get real! Besides, people vote gay marriage out when it's put on the ballot and idiot judges legalize it. Who's out of control, here? Is it "We the People" or "I the Judge"?
A lot of the founders of this country weren't in fact Christians. It says in the Constitution: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." I'd appreciate if you'd just list facts without the filler to support your arguments. Stuff like "get real" doesn't push your argument at all, it just makes you obnoxious.
"A lot of the founders of this country weren't in fact Christians"
Uh, who's being obnoxious? This is just a complete distortion of FACT. I love how you libs do that.
What's your point in bringing up the "no religious test clause"? Here we go again with smoke and mirrors, liberal tactics. You distort intent and make it mean something that it doesn't. It might make you feel good but you're way off on this. Try again. You lose on gay marriage because "The People" don't want it!
You're really horrible at arguing. Complaining about distorted facts without presenting your own just makes you look like you're in denial. The truth is, they didn't want Christian beliefs affecting the laws, which is why they made laws like that and the freedom of religion. Obviously they understood that not everyone had the same religious beliefs so they wanted to keep everyone even, by not making any religion affect the laws. I'm pretty sure it says ALL men are created equal.
Come on, skylancer, try to rein it in a little. Your criticism of my argument technique doesn't offend me at all. What does offend me is your complete and utter ignorance. For you to state that our founders didn't want Christian beliefs affecting our laws is idiotic. They didn't want an established church determining laws (i.e. a specific denomination established by the State). If you knew anything about your history, you'd know this. But your off the cuff comments show your ignorance.
You're arguing this from a Christian perspective, I'm arguing from a sideline perspective. You're changing the meaning of what they say to fit your beliefs.
TYPICAL ACLU perspective. You are dead wrong. I've read the crap where you've picked up your material. Do me a favor: pick up a George Washington or Lincoln speech and see how he references his faith & God. There's no doubt, no doubt these men relied on their Christian faith. Your little pinheads out there telling you otherwise are lying.
I don't even know what the ACLU is, but just because some presidents believed in God doesn't mean it should affect our laws. Move on from the dark ages, we live in an age of science and logic.
Don't even know what the ACLU is? Well you've been doing a great job of spewing their talking points so this I find hard to believe. There are few educated people in this country that don't know what the ACLU is and if you're not aware, you'd better find out. They're doing all they can to ruin this country. Yes, I know your type. The kind that says science is always right and people of faith are idiots. Well, you have more faith than I do. Science changes like the wind.
"i'm a numbers guy" yet you believe in one book over thousands of years more advanced scientific data. that's the beauty of science, the theories are just theories and it can change along with the more facts we know. meaning each time it changes, we get closer to the truth. with religion, you base your facts around what compliments your religion.
My foundation never changes. That's the beauty of truth. Your "science" is on ever shifting sands. Sure, there's good science but there's a lot of bad science, too. I pursue truth and trust in what's good. You've believed a bunch of lies about my faith. I'm sure it supports a lifestyle, too.
"my foundation never changes" that's called ignorance. if you aren't willing to accept things just because they dont coincide with your previously held belief system, that's remaining purposefully ignorant.
Obviously, you've never searched for truth. I have. When you do a serious search for it, you'll run smack into it like I have. I was in a place like you once but when I realized over the passage of time, science tends not to be able to stand the test of time. My faith does. The real science that matters is in line with my faith. The make up science that you put all your faith in, that helps support lifestyles, is a joke, a fantastic joke. THAT'S ignornace. You have no leg to stand on.
Skylancer, clearly what happens is people that want to live a certain lifestyle go out and find an excuse for doing so by saying science supports their worldview when in fact it conflicts. There are theories out there that are baseless and you reject counter-theories that threaten your worldview. So you end up looking like an extremist (which you are). You are not open to anything truthful-that's shocking to me.
Christians have stood 2000+ yrs of testing and flourished. You need to reconsider.
You think I'm an Atheist to support a certain lifestyle? I'm polite, I'm trying to get a job, I'm going to school, I respect my parents, I don't cause trouble. Nothing I do requires me to be an Atheist. If you met me in real life, I don't think you'd find anything disagreeable about the way I live. Making a stereotype that I chose this because I wanted to live a certain way is a big assumption you're in no position to make.
Did I ever say this? I have no problem with you, sky, no problem. I've worked with people that can't deal with God but where I have a problem with you is when you rewrite our history books and try somehow to remove God from our past. This is typical atheistic rantings and just isn't true. America was born with Christian roots and will continue that way depite people like you trying to tell us otherwise. Why do you have such a problem with God? He is all that is good & right.
Bravo! No one speaks likes this anymore as if our fine institutions and societies and government is an endless well needing no maintenance or comonality. Many in todays lexicon believe a stable society happens spontaneously, needing no sacrafice, no common values or commitment for future survival or upkeep. And marriage is just a narsacistic badge to be worn on one's chest like a Mercedes to prove one has "arrived." It all makes me sick. The 2nd end of Rome is at hand, a new dark age comes.
The basis of your argument (marriage as incentives promote child bearing) isn't strong.
The glaring issue is you don't provide any evidence to support the claim. While it could be a benefit that married people will have more children, there's no evidence that societies that don't have state marraiges don't bear children. Humans were having and raising children long before the invention of government and marriage.
Moreover, even if you accept it that marriage is a tool encourage raising children, then what happens when the need for extra incentive disappears. With the current population desity, there are scientists pointing out overpopulation as a threat and no notable amount speaking of underpopulation. There is no current need to provide incentive to raise children. It's more favorable to provide incentives not to have children, implying straight marriage should be abolished and gay marriage allowed.
I'm sorry but the "overpopulation" scare ended decades ago and while you may be correct about the continued utility of an incentive that simply encourages childbearing you must remember that marriage is a dual incentive... It encourages both childbearing and child rearing in combination, it is a complete package. It does not encourage the two apart from each other...
This is true and a decent critic of my theory, however you need to understand that what I say in the video is my best guess, based in logic, of what marriage is and why it exists in the first place. I'm open to counter theories but I have yet to hear a good one...
The point I have been trying to make is that if you support the state providing incentives for my widowed grandmother to remarry her new love or continuing to provide incentives to my parents to keep them together even after they've completed the task that was in the state's interest (producing and raising children), then you are already acknowledging another purpose of marriage. You don't need anyone to propose another theory to you. It's inherent in your position.
Yes... its the same point that's been brought up by almost every comment. and I already answered it, if you don't like my answer and you have a reason then posting that would be productive. I'm just saying that everyone posting the same point that I've already addressed gets tiresome.
Why is gay marriage wrong? Gay men can adopt, lesbians can use artificial semen correct? We have too many kids in orphan homes, so if they want a family they can adopt.
And not every straight couple has a family....
In a few years, you are going to look back and think how stupid it is how we kept them from having a marriage.
I don't feel that you've really answered my argument so allow me to rephrase it. You have said that the state's interest in marriage is procreation. Despite that, the law allows couples who cannot or choose not to reproduce to marry. Essentially, you have a law that is "over inclusive". Unless you are willing to close those loopholes in the law, how can I take your argument seriously? I would submit that inherent in your position is an acknowledgement that procreation is not the only purpose
of marriage, otherwise these other marriages would conflict with your premise and require exclusion from the law. If you leave these loopholes open, how can you legally justify continued exclusion for same sex couples, since the exclusion is NOT based on a procreative standard, which is the measure you proposed?
You don't understand the difference between incentive and reward?
Let me try to explain it better.
You see when legal marriage was conceived I believe there was a reason for it. The people who conceived it realized that it was a huge benefit to the state for two heterosexuals to stay together for long periods of time because when they do that the likelihood they will produce AND raise their children skyrockets.
The same can, clearly, not be said of homosexuals.
What interest does the state have in incentivizing a marriage between two 60 years olds who obviously are no more likely to reproduce and possibly less likely to raise children than a gay couple? Or for that matter what interest does the state have in continuing to provide incentives to keep a couple married after their children have grown up, moved out, and started their own lives? If the state's interest is in couples producing and raising children why provide incentives to couples who do not?
In other words, you want these incentives targeted enough to exclude homosexuals on the basis of their inability to produce children, but not targeted enough to exclude heterosexual couples that are just as unlikely to produce children. Why is that?
I am a Firefighter, my Partner is a Pilot, both served in the AF , together we have an adopted Daughter, and a civil union does not carry half of what we need as protection for our Family unit. The Will that we have does not close out a contest from his family if he should die before I do,,what should we do?
[As I ran out of room] Additionally, if the framework of a marriage is organized largely around childbearing, I have yet to hear of a case in which and infertile couple has been granted marital rights. After all, there are many children available to adopt, and I would certainly consider that a method of producing a child: via the care and commitment of two people devoted to each other.
Your comment along with the 20 others makes me wonder why people never read the comments before theirs... I understand that this is probably the first time you've watched the video but this is about the thousandth time I've heard that argument and I'm just not going to respond to it again. Read the comments if you want to know what I think of your argument.
Part of the reason why allowing gay marriage does upset a larger population core outside of the strictly homosexual population bloc is simply due to the notice over the lack of civil rights? It's inane to justify a lack of "coverage" to a small demographic simply because they're small.
I don't see where this decision is hurting you in anyway.
You still have rights to be married why is it such a big deal for two people that love each other to get a break from the government just like you and everyone else.
I think you have a rather skewed view of the point of marriage. The vast majority of benefits surrounding marriage deal with the orderly distribution of property and debt, so that two people can better take care of themselves and eachother. With the state recognizing marriage equality, it shores up the longth term welfare of an additional population. Without marriage, intestacy, insurance, debt-management, property ownership, and so on are more haphazard and costly for the state.
Insurance companies will tell you that married people take fewer risks. They're also less likely to engage in socially or personally destructive behavior. And they tend to have greater economic output than they would have had individually.
So by granting same-sex marriage, the state can benefit from reduced criminal behavior (club drugs), reduced self-destructive behavior (promiscuous unprotected STD-transmitting sex) and an enlarged economy.
"...the group they're trying to appease makes up, at most, between 1/3 of 1% and 1% of the population..."
Actually, estimates are usually much higher. It is hard to determine the exact number, especially with so many gays living in the closet out of fear. Estimates are as low as 2% and as high as 10% for the U.S.
what people dont understand about gay marrige is so what if they cant have kids that just give them more incentive to adopt so think about the fucking orphans living in shitty low grade orphanages then a family comes along to help them so why should we have any say in someone elses life if we can ban gay marrige i saw we also ban alchohol all tobacco all religions and we convert to comunisim
The incentive for the country to allow the members of the LGBT community to marry is the need for all parties involved to be protected. You said heterosexual marriage protect the continuation of the state.
Gay marriage also protects the continuation of state. Who you ask?
- The children that are abandoned or taken from their straight parent/s are can be adopted by gay couples. If one dies though marriage the child is still protected. Because of this the state is not filled with children
Marriage is a way to legally strengthen the bond of two people who love each other. Up till now gays were the only ones excluded from that. Even polygamists can marry one person they love. So aside from the inequality under the law that prohibiting gay marriage presents, you forget that gay couples adopt and care for many of the unwanted children from straight couples which certainly benefits the state. Finally, if gays make up such a small % of the population, why do people fear them so much?
It's 1950. You're a white man who falls in love with a black woman. You want to marry her and make children. The state says you can't. Whites can only marry whites, and blacks can only marry blacks. A few years later an "Activist Court" makes a "ridiculous ruling" that says it's unconstitutional to deny you the right to marry, even though 70% of your fellow citizens think it should be against the law. Would you support this "ridiculous ruling" or would you go out and marry your beloved?
Same-sex couples can and do form families with children. That alone is a very important response to your argument, but the point I want emphasize is something else.
The state has more interest in marriage than simply keeping couples together for the sake of their hypothetical children. Comment space won't let me get too detailed here, but basically, marriage creates kinship between families, and bonds of kinship are positive and healthy for a society.
Well, you seem to be a level-headed, intellingent man, even though I do not agree with your views on this issue. The "package of benefits intended to keep heterosexual couples together" doesn't really to that, does it? LOTS of heterosexual couples divorce, even if their religion forbids it. I think SylviaDM spoke very well to your point on procreation. And finally, the Supreme Court isn't "appeasing a minority" as you put it, it's the duty of our courts to protect minorities from the majority.
Thank you, and yes it is true that marriage doesn't always succeed in keeping couples together but that fact doesn't disprove my claim that marriage is intended to keep couples together in order that they might have children and then raise those children. Right?
But as for the supreme court of California, thats not who I was addressing in this video, this video is more about the theory of what marriage is and what its intended to do and why it is incompatible with homosexual relationships.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Whether or not marriage is intended to keep couples together so that they might reproduce, the fact of the matter is that it does not. Couples with children aren't imune from divorce, and unmarried couples have children all the time. Sorry, but not a valid argument.
If my partner were to be hospitalized, I would want to be at his bedside. If I die, I would want him to inherit my property. Why are these rights only for heterosexuals?
I think that you've make the same mis-step as SylviaDM in examining my argument. You see marriage is not a reward system for staying together or having children but rather an incentive system aimed at getting people into a position where they are more likely to have children AND raise them in a healthy manor.
As for the legal rights you mentioned... well in many states (including California) gay couples can get those rights through civil unions and other legal means. I am not opposed to that.
I'm afraid I have to agree with SylviaDM. Marriage and procreation are not mutually exclusive.
As for the legal rights... Why is it ok that, just because I'm gay, I have to resort to legal means just to get the basic rights that heterosexual married couples enjoy? I've been with my partner for over 22 years, yet I am not his "next of kin" in the eyes of the law. I should not have to hire an attorney at great expense just to get some of the basic rights you take for granted.
We all resort to legal means to get those rights to people we aren't related to... Thats what marriage is in the eyes of the state... its a legal contract that you have to enter into in order to gain the benefits it offers.
In other words, what I'm saying is, how is it any more difficult to get a civil union or power of attorney order that it is to get a marriage license?
You can go down to the courthouse and buy a marriage license (for what, $50?). You're done. You get married and enjoy all the rights of "next of kin".
My partner and I can register as domestic partners, but then have to hire an attorney to draw up the trusts, wills, and other documents to give us as many of the same protections, at considerable expense, that you get FOR FREE. Even then, none of it amounts to a hill of beans in the eyes of the federal government, but that's another matter
Sorry, but I think you're missing something here. We let heterosexual couples who have no intention of having children or couples that cannot conceive children marry. Why should these couples reap the benefits of marriage if they are not fulfilling it's intended purpose? And if an exception can be extended to them, why not gay people as well? I really see no validity to your argument.
That is a point that I have heard before as well. But the problem is that marriage is not a reward system for having and raising children but rather it is a package of incentives intended on putting people into a position where they are more likely to produce children AND raise them in a healthy environment. Do you see the difference?
I'm not sure that I understand any practical distinction between your ideas of reward and incentive. The reward is the incentive, isn't it? What incentive does an older couple that is past child bearing years have for getting married, for example? They are taking advantage of the legal benefits marriage offers. If procreation is the measure, how do you make a legal distinction between two non-child bearing couples without discriminating against one of them?
I wasn't going to listen to your video, but after I did I was glad that I did. Your argument is very sound and reasonable. I'm glad that you didn't start ranting about "words from God" and how wrong it is from a religious standpoint.
yes, But that certainly isn't the intended purpose of same-sex marriage. And in fact using a package of incentives to encourage people to partner with those of the same-sex is damaging to the longevity of the state.
I'm sorry. I don't think any package of incentives is going to encourage heterosexuals to suddenly start entering into gay relationships. I also don't understand how giving gay couples equal protection under the law is damaging to the longevity of the state. Please tell me how exactly the damage occurs...
Well, sexuality is an extremely complicated issue. What exactly influences orientation is still hotly debated... I believe that their are in fact many things that influence it to different degrees.
With that being said would you agree that marriage encourages people to enter into long term heterosexual relationships?
If so then similarly wouldn't gay marriage encourage people to enter into long term homosexual relationships?
And since those relationships don't naturally produce and raise children. Wouldn't it be counter productive for the state to encourage people to enter into those relationships if the state is interested in its own longevity?
I don't see how it's wrong to encourage homosexuals to enter into long term relationships. I KNOW it's not going to encourage heterosexuals to enter into long term homosexual relationships. So I don't see the threat.
Lastly, there are many heterosexual marriages that do not produce children, for whatever reason. Should the state then make it a reguirement of marriage that children be produced if it's in the state's best interest?
1%? try between 10-15% are atleast bisexual
take 10 males , atleast one would be gay and then atelast 2 would be bisexual
there are alot more gay people than you think..
actually bisexuality is alot higher of a number.. there are alot of straight people who have had sex with the same gender. so you have to factor that in as well, and it becomes 25-30% of the population has done something homosexual.
thisphotoisproof 3 weeks ago
it's also not in the state's interest to free slaves or grant inter-racial marriage in history either according to that logic. Procreation also has nothing to do with a states interest, if they do only make as you say upto 1%, then it doesn't matter if they don't procreate.
meggatonman 6 months ago
Best of luck with those arguments.
Pilgrim812 6 months ago
But what about hetero couples that don't want to raise children, or simply can't have children? They surely shouldn't be allowed to marry! Or the gay couples that want to have children (which they CAN just not in the traditional way!)? They should get the "benefit package" as you put it. Face it, marriage isn't always about kids. If that's what it's about to you, then fine, get married and have kids. Leave my civil rights out of it.
pixitwixie 7 months ago
If gays and lesbians are such a minute portion of the population, why not let them marry?
BTW: Heterosexuals have achieved a 52% divorce rate on their own. Why is marriage sacred only when gays and lesbians want it.
As for the "incentives package," if that's what heterosexuals need to stay together, sad sad sad.
CanTake8 7 months ago
lol ignorance...
GodofVengence 7 months ago 3
How small a minority is should have no bearing on how fairly they are treated in comparison to the rest of society. If black people only made up .3% of the population in the US, should we take away benefits for them too? Or maybe we could single out gingers (people with red hair) and take away their marriage benefits, regardless of whether or not they represent a big segment of the population or not. Equality is all or nothing, if ANY group, even minuscule loses benefits, then we aren't equal.
RazzoClimhazzard 8 months ago
According to your logic of "marriage is instituted because presumably the couple will produce children," then we shouldn't grant marriages to women who are barren or elderly people. Seriously dude. Put yourself in our shoes for once and realize we just want to be treated equally. Not better, not worse. Equally.
KerouacAndCoke 8 months ago
At the point when you cite the state's definition to "disprove" gay marriage, you assume that the state can never be wrong. I don't think I need to point out the fallacy.
PsYcHo4MuSiC 10 months ago
This isn't a "different" perspective as you claim. This is just all the old arguments that have been debunked before being presented as "facts" to try and prevent me from achieving the same rights you have. I would tackle each point you make, but really that's already been done time and time again by others. The fact is, marriage is about the happiness of the people involved. To deny someone else the pursuit of that is unconstitutional.
ChuckMeIntoHell 10 months ago
dude it's not about what the state gets out of it.. it's about us.. me and my man pay taxes for schools and social security that's for the benefit of mainly hetero couples, me and my dude have to pay into separate health plans instead of just paying into one... me and my dude had problems with the hospital when i got sick and the administration wouldn't let him see me, because we're not "related"... come on it's so much more than the benefit to the state.
brigantty 10 months ago
fuck you guy
TheBarnCat51 10 months ago
wow....please get your g.e.d. before making a vlog..you are exactly what is wrong with america. uneducated,unelightened, patethic waste. leave poeple to do as they please.. and marriage benefits are there to keep couples together. holy shit..there's no way someone as dumb as you is married..more than likely in the closet without anyone and ragging about a subject you'll know nothing about due to not having anyone to be involved with in the 1st place.wether gay or straight.idiot...
DUDEEE28 11 months ago
If we are Democrats then surely we all believe in equality. Then if this is the case equality must surely be for everyone not just for those who we deem fit, is that logical enough. Your bigotry is not even that articulate or well thought out you claim to know what the majority think with no proof at all. I do not care for the acceptance from heterosexual people or crave it. But I do care that people are treated equally before the law whether the bigots like it or not.
btonyb123 11 months ago
yup very well put my friend. Yes marriage is a 'package of benefits', but also a set of legal privileges established by the state which centuries of experience PROVES is most beneficial to the interests of the state and society as a whole.Also, the particular form of monogamous marriage which is privileged in our society has its roots in practices and ideas which proceeded the modern western nation/state. Before insisting on radical changes gay advocates MUST prove how this change helps EVERYONE
shieldsff 11 months ago
Homosexual couples can't produce more children among themselves, that is true, but that doesn't mean they cannot effectively raise a child. Homosexual couples will be more prone to adopt children, taking them off the burden of the state, and providing a better home for them than an orphanage could.
There is also artificial insemination which would allow a gay couple, at least a female gay couple, the ability to give birth and raise a child.
Truth is, right now, we have too many children.
tfavors28 1 year ago
Are you okay?? Did you suffer any brain injuries before making this video?
Just to name a few, demigogg, BlueShreveport, DerekVids, and razor8900 are all exactly correct.
RagingAudioslave 1 year ago
So following your logic.
Marriage is for raising children.
Then logically, heterosexual couples who are sterile, too old, or chooses not to have children should be forced to:
1) get pregnant
2) adopt children
3) get a divorce
If said heterosexual couple do not comply to one of those choices within a federally/religiously approved period of time, then they should be fined or imprisoned for breach of contract.
Oh, marriage is a contract and breaking it should have consequences.
demigogg 1 year ago
There is a reason he doesn't want to talk about the specifics of that case. Because that case laid out in detail specifically why it is wrong to deny gay people the right to marry. If he talked about that case he would be presenting solid arguments against his point of view - so he ignores it.
Johnson154 1 year ago
So? Your argument is against gay marriage because they can not reproduce and therefore threatens the states longevity. Do you believe that sterile couples, or couples that do not wish to have children, or elderly couples who are no longer able to reproduce should not get married also? They would also fall under the same category as gay people. When two people marry the state does not ask them before hand if they plan on having children. In the states eyes it is just a contract.
BlueShreveport 1 year ago
Do we really NEED anymore children? ESPECIALLY in Cali?!
edmcadam 1 year ago
I'm guessing you're one of those people who thinks that if we grant marriage rights to homosexuals, the human population will cease to exist... That argument amuses me.
tiaashley2009 1 year ago
So do you think it's fair that heterosexuals get marriage benefits when homosexuals dont? What about infertile couples? Isn't it better to adopt a child anyway given that there are thousands of orphans who need a home? Also, just because something isn't popular with the majority doesn't mean it's right. Look at interracial marriage. Back in the 60s and 70s it was looked at as obscene, disgusting, vile. But preventing it was wrong do you not agree?
razor8900 1 year ago
I can't even believe what I heard from your mouth.
Issues I had with your (and excuse my rudeness) fucking idiotic standpoint:
You defined state marriage between a straight couple as insuring the continuation of family, by having children and whatnot. Okay, firstly, then you just eliminated those who cannot bare children. My friend can never have a child, so she shouldn't be able to get married? And what you're basically saying is by allowing gay marriage, the state won't continue...
DerekVids 1 year ago
@DerekVids No logical reason to grant same sex marriage to homosexual couples?
Excuse me, but the most logical reason I can see is that in our Constitution it says "All men are created equal". And considering that is written in ink, you can't really change that little fact. It isn't "All men (but gay men) are created equal". So, don't act all dense on the situation and say, "I see no logical reason". If you were a logical person, you definitely would.
DerekVids 1 year ago
@DerekVids Finally, who the FUCK is anyone to limit a minority's rights? It has never been fair to single out a smaller group because your views are different. Look what we did (and this argument is overused, but damn true) to the blacks. We tried to limit their rights. It's sickening that America had to go through that kind of bigotry once... let alone several other times.
DerekVids 1 year ago
@DerekVids Bottom line... if you don't agree with gay marriage, then don't get one. However, no one has the right to judge someone's life based on whom they love. No one has the right to DENY love. No one has the right to come into MY house and say my love isn't my family. I see these conservative views as just glorified bigotry.
Gay marriage isn't going to bring this nation down. People aren't going to line up to be gay. Marriages of heteros aren't going to end. JUST GET OVER IT!!!
DerekVids 1 year ago
The majority of America shouldn't be upset about gay marriage becoming illegal anyways..
CrzyJerry333 1 year ago
The Homosexual couples who want children... are there for when heterosexual couples fail to do their job and get rid of their children... The number of Homosexuals is not going to hurt the States population.. There will always be Heterosexuals producing numbers... But is that what all we are? Just numbers for a country? I believe in something quite bigger than just being part of a state...
CrzyJerry333 1 year ago
Good vid. In response to your "no logical reason" for the state's advocacy of Gay Marriage: The leftists who largely populate state and federal government have a deep ideological antipathy towards Judeo-Christian values; so if the cornerstone of those values can be made meaningless, it's a good day.
If, according to Judge Walker's decision, marriage is a fundamental right, next in line should be polygamists, then incest.... really, there's now no logical reason for denying this right at all.
donde2k 1 year ago
So since a gay couple can not have a kid, we should also prohibit the marriages of the elderly and the barron or sterile. If you can't have kids then theres no reason to marry? I may have misunderstand but I'm pretty sure this is what you were saying boils down to..
tymedrop 1 year ago
LOL. Omg, I stopped taking this guy after reading "two sense" in his description. Marriage has always been about the exchange of property from one party to another. This is a STATE marriage, not a religious one. There really isn't any point to your ramble and quite frankly, you make yourself seem so high and mighty when in reality, you're a pathetic hyppocrite. "If your response is intelligent"... Wouldn't you have to be an intelligent person in order to process and respond to said intelligence?
Shaprika 1 year ago
They shouldnt teach people that it shouldnt have anything to do with the government anyway.
Omega3chimp 1 year ago
Since when is fertility a requirement of marriage?
The actual percentage of gays in this or any other country is about 10%.
Gays often have children from previous relationships, e.g. gays are NOT sterile.
Gays, if legally married, can adopt those unwanted children of heterosexual liasons.
Go ahead and delete me, or just put your fingers in your ears and go la la la I can't hear youuuuuuu!
Albtraumen 2 years ago
The state this, the state that, the state will recognize what benefits the state, yadda yadda yadda.
When did we become a bunch of communists?
I for one, and many Libertarians like me, feel that the state does not have any constitutional right to regulate marriage in the first place. But, since the state IS regulating marriage, there can be an argument made that there is a federal constitutional requirement to recognize gay couples in the same way that they recognize str8 couples.
jonnyrocket77 2 years ago
Your video is up here, so this is your post of entertaining idiocy for your own and others amusement.....hmmm good job.... I concur this makes me laugh at you....
1) being able to post something on youtube
2) knowing how to turn the camera on
3) breathing......although u seem to have issues with that...(hint I know what I am refering to so yeah lol)
CONGRATULATIONS! MOZALTOV~
Winxs3000 2 years ago
Your argument that it is appeasing a minority at the risk of "upsetting" a majority is flawed in that it sidesteps the issue of whether or not it is morally acceptable to deny benefits to one segment of the population due to circumstances outside of their control. It certainly upset a majority of the population to give minorities the right to vote, that doesn't mean that it wasn't the right thing to do. I'm also curious to know how this issue actually effects you on a day to day basis.
dmfahey 2 years ago
Marriage has very little or even nothing to do with ensuring the continuation of a state. The primary thing needed to ensure this is reproduction. Marriage is not needed for this function at all. Children are raised in many different types of homes.
sashajw1234 2 years ago
I think some others summed it up very well, but I must reiterate the point: this is an extremely flawed argument, not only from the perspective of political philosophy (e.g.: how you refer to the well-being of the State), but equally from the perspective of the history of marriage law and custom. Your argument, partially based in social conservatism, is a great attempt at logic; yet, it falls short (mostly, because social conservatism is altogether illogical).
totallyclassic411 2 years ago
I think you're missing several of the key points of marriage as a state institution, having nothing to do directly with having children. Having a recognized legal partner is of interest to the state in cases of property, possession, debt, medical decisions and inheritance. A spouse can make medical decisions if their husband or wife is incapable of making those decisions, or for inhertitance be the recipient of property or estate upon death, also life insurance benefits.
damthetorpeedos 2 years ago
you could see the homophobia in your eyes , stop looking for excuses
stefanybody 2 years ago
boy this is dissappointing if this is the product our colleges are putting out these days
flaws and lies throughout the entire video
most importantly that gays make up 1/3 of 1%... ??? U didn't do your homeowork before you posted this one... But the video does demonstrate you are a bigot, like in the way you say Hom-o sex-u-al...
Bubba305305 2 years ago
Gays should marry if they want....
Personal im against ANYONE getting married!
nxji 2 years ago
I just went back and read all the comments here, AFTER making my post of course. I apologize for reiterating previous arguments. I do have a question now though. Are you trying to imply that it is only possible for healthy child-raising to occur with heterosexual couples, and is utterly impossible with homosexual ones? 'Cause if so, that just ain't true. Research shows that kids from either type of family turn out about the same. Just 'cause someone is straight, doesn't mean they're moral.
OrkotheDorko 2 years ago
Or would make good parents. And vice versa. Just 'cause someone is gay doesn't automatically make them immoral, or potentially unfit parents. Morality doesn't discriminate based on sexual orientation. It varies from individual to individual. Therefore, sexual orientation should not be the basis of social discrimination. If you must discriminate, do it 'cause you KNOW the party is deserving of it, not because you THINK everyone in an entire group falls into the same exact catagory.
OrkotheDorko 2 years ago
I see a couple things wrong with your commentary:
1) Not all straight couples want or are able to have kids, yet can still get hitched.
2) Plenty of homosexual couples want or do have kids. And these couples that do have a family of their own did not get there by accident. Excluding cases where the kids came from previous "straight" relationships, it takes a tremendous effort for a same-sex couple to have kid(s). So you know they're wanted. Don't they deserve rights/protections too?
OrkotheDorko 2 years ago
Why grant marrige to infertile couples?
older couples?
freezerain 2 years ago
Clearly a marriage license should be issued only to couples upon the birth of their first child and should be revoked when their youngest child reaches the age of 18. Everything else is a waste of taxpayer's money. At least if your reasoning had any basis in reality.
mbruck77 3 years ago
Then the state wouldn't be encouraging a stable home environment prior to the arrival of the first child. Nest building is incentivized only by granting marriage rights even before the first child arrives, obviously. And revocation? LOL. That would only have the perverse incentive of delaying child-bearing for as long as it is biologically possible and for as long as it is fiscally beneficial. You would be encouraging siblings spaced 18 years apart. I suggest you get back to reality.
sklanger 3 years ago
i am also glad that you are attempting to argue from the state's point of view; however, your argument is weak. Points: 1. Homosexuals can't reproduce
2. we shouldn't try to give rights to minority groups if it angers the majority. You seem like you might be a smart guy, but point 1 is stupid, and point 2 is unamerican. But please, try and give an argument from the state why a stable same sex marriage is unfit for raising adopted children. And why America should be less American.
JezusExizted 3 years ago
The constitution was created to protect
every one including protecting the minority from the majority! Ask african Americans
freezerain 2 years ago
Well, you'd better delete this because you are a bigot.
philip0460 3 years ago
Well, you'd better delete yourself because you are a faggot. hahHAhahaAHahHA
sklanger 3 years ago
Was I supposed to be insulted by that, you stupid fuck?
philip0460 3 years ago
Yes. You sound insulted. You dumb useless fuck. :)
sklanger 3 years ago
Ignorant idiots never insult me, but I do pity your stupidness :)
philip0460 3 years ago
When did marriage all of a sudden become just a bond of two people who just create more children? Tons of heterosexual couples choose to have abortions or not even have a child.
TcgRichard 3 years ago
You are confusing "generative love" with literally having children. But all this love means is that you do something to contribute to the well being of the next generation. Generative love is definitely one of the main human purposes of marriage. The other big one is "companionable love," the special blending of the affections and interests of two individuals. The next big purpose of marriage relates to property rights, a secular prerogative of the state. Gays can pass all three norms.
notonmypage 3 years ago
God forbid people get upset about civil rights and equality!
Would you have told MLK Jr. that we should give blacks the right to vote because it would "upset" a lot of people?
kennyjburke12 3 years ago
gays can raise children, its called adoption. and since when is america about ganging up on the minority. If we thought this way would women or blacks have the same rights as they do today if we stayed on this line of thought?
lpsim580 3 years ago 2
the LGBT community makes up about 10-15% of the population.
I don't see the difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals. Love is the same and it should be treated the same. If you give stuff to one couple, you should give it to all couples. If you don't believe that, there's nothing I can say to make you believe it. Oh well. I will say I appreciate you sharing your opinion and basing it on YOUR VIEWS, not the views of religious dogma or whatever.
Peace.
wilmil7545 3 years ago 9
Wow, I hope someone rapes you up the ass, without lube.
brucenitro 3 years ago
what about couples who choose to not have kids or can't have kids for physical reasons? Should they not be allowed to marry too?
thesmile3 3 years ago
what about couples who choose to not have kids or can't have kids for physical reasons? Should they not be allowed to marry too?
thesmile3 3 years ago
live and let live, who gives a fuck? we are at war for fucks sake.
codownni 3 years ago
I respect your refreshingly logical approach, but your argument is very flawed. Would you ever dream of allowing the state to stop infertile heterosexual couples from marrying, because it would produce no offspring? So we should assume that the state supports marriage largely because it has a good stabilizing effect.
jeremyhartwood 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The ultra religious right was against: 1) Women's Right to vote in 1919, 2) Freedom of Slaves until the enactment of the Emancipation Proclamation by Abraham Lincoln, 3) The 15th Amendment giving Blacks the right to Vote in 1870. And were was the Church in 1941 when 11,000,000 Jews, Poles, gays, Russians and gypsies were slaughtered in Germany.....they looked the other way. My point is that the Religious far Right, does not always get it right !
eagomez00 3 years ago 2
Don't know why this was marked as spam, he seems to have it right.
skylancer90 3 years ago
We should not forget that the Evangelical Christians, the Church and social conservatives, were vehemently opposed to Inter-Racial marriage between Blacks and Whites, until the supreme court of CA in Perez vs. Sharp of 1948, ruled it Unconstitutional to ban whites and blacks from marriage. Did the Sanctity of Marriage collapse, did America become perverse, did it compromise family values as Christians claimed...No it did NOT !! Their fear of the unfamiliar was reversed
eagomez00 3 years ago
what about equal rights?
The constitution is for all. IT says ALL are created Equal. The reason the constitution exist is to help protect the monority from the majority. you can not offer spical rights and benefits to some and deny them to all.
freezerain 3 years ago
Where does the Constitution say ALL are created Equal?
NewLantman 2 years ago
You are right It was the Preamble to the Declararation of Indenpence
freezerain 2 years ago
If you read the Declaration of Independence you realize that all MEN are created equal and that means only males not females or children when they are speaking of females and children as well as males they use words such as people and mankind in the text. In addition the preamble
NewLantman 2 years ago
is a clause at the beginning of a constitution
NewLantman 2 years ago
or statute explanatory of the reasons for its enactment and the objects sought to be accomplished. Generally, a preamble is a declaration by the legislature of the reasons for the passage of the statute and is helpful in the interpretation of any ambiguities within the statute to which it is prefixed. It has been held HOWEVER TO NOT BE AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE ACT, AND NEITHER ENLARGES NOR CONFERS POWERS.
NewLantman 2 years ago
SOURCE: Black's Law Dictionary, abridged Sixth Edition, Centennial Edition (1891-1991) West Publishing Co. (1991) p 813
NewLantman 2 years ago
As the Supreme Court has interperted those words to mean Mankind You should too.
freezerain 2 years ago
When did the Supreme Court interpret those words to mean Mankind?
NewLantman 2 years ago
Now by your reasoning, there is no logical reason for the state to grant marriage to homosexuals because they cannot reproduce for "the longevity of the state."
So how can marriage be allowed for heterosexual couples who are either far beyond their child-bearing years or sterile? They cannot fulfill this service to the state and therefore by your own logic should not be allowed to marry.
befriendfrance 3 years ago
Double bravo! I'm happy my federal taxes that are being directed to liberal universities are not corrupting all minds. Keep up the good work and stay on the march for conservatism.
ort777 3 years ago
you have no idea what real conservatism is. a REAL conservative wouldn't oppose gay marriage just because it goes against his religious beliefs. you guys are NEO conservatives.
skylancer90 3 years ago
Ummm yea... did you even watch the video? Or did you just pull out your trusty liberal thesaurus and blindly point to words in order to concoct this master piece of a comment?
TheCollegePolitico 3 years ago
my comment was a response to "ort777" and how would you determine that i'm liberal based on a comment defending true conservatism?
skylancer90 3 years ago
No, a libertarian would oppose gay marriage. Conservatives oppose moral corruption and gay marriage is morally corrupt.
ort777 3 years ago
libertarian= no government intervention. same with real conservatives. you're confusing a neocon with a conservative. neocons are the ones who oppose things based on their religious beliefs. if you dont even know what a libertarian is, then i suggest you dont try to argue.
skylancer90 3 years ago
Well, skylancer, since you're the expert and you so easily categorize people as neocon's or conservatives yet throw a short little definition on libertarian's, who happen to really have the broadest definition of any group (thus really cop out on defining any morals as a group) who do you suggest will determine what's right and what's wrong if not the people thru government via laws? If we don't define marriage between man & woman, what's to stop man marrying a child in the future?
ort777 3 years ago
I think libertarian's are around because they're uncomfortable with the boundaries of law ie someone telling them their abhorrent behavior is wrong. This is a Christian nation and biblical principles do guide us, whether or not you like that. It's just a cold hard fact that everyone wants to deny.
ort777 3 years ago
i agree, this is a primarily christian country. that doesn't mean christianity should affect our laws. lets not turn this into a religious debate, but imagine if a muslim wanted to incorporate a law that you were against, but it was supported by muslims. would you be happy with that? thats how i feel about christianity affecting our laws. cmon dude, this is freedom 101, basic stuff
skylancer90 3 years ago
This is where we disagree. We disagree with the "separation of church and state" argument. This has been taken out of context and changed over time. The reason this needs to be a religious debate is because it's the only place where morals are concrete. Post modernism has attempted to change this but there's a majority of us that think morals must not "evolve".
I think it's very simple to dispel the Muslim issue. We are Christian, not Muslim - period.
ort777 3 years ago
"we are christian, not muslim - period" that doesnt answer my question, it was a hypothetical one. you're avoiding a hypothetical question because you know your response would make you look like a hypocrite. as to the morals, i'm an atheist and i consider myself a very moral person. you should know that society sets the morals, not religion.
skylancer90 3 years ago
I have no problem answering any question and I'm not a hypocrite regardless what you think. I have limited space to answer and a lot of thoughts running thru my head. It is no surprise to me that I find yet another youtube atheist. Society is incapable of setting morals that are decent. Would you like to life next to the Aztecs and tell me how that works out? I've got about 10 debates going on at once so just be blunt and forward with your questions. It's the way I like it.
ort777 3 years ago
oversimplifying something to the point where it isnt even a relevant answer isn't "blunt and forward". and i'm not a "youtube atheist" im simply a person who has no religion arguing with you on youtube.
skylancer90 3 years ago
I won't get into a religious argument with you because I've been down that road too many times on youtube. You're in a much different place than the majority of American's are so I guess it boils down to who wins in an election. I don't think that'll ever change. As much as atheists like to manipulate stats, people embrace religion for a reason and always will. There is a moral law giver and He is not man.
ort777 3 years ago
no, i agree. i don't have anything against religion, it gives people hope and can even make people strive to be better. the problem lies with where they draw the line. when peoples beliefs cross over to affect other people, when they start making their beliefs part of the LAW. that's what i'm against.
JuddyXP 3 years ago
Can you provide examples?
ort777 3 years ago
I didn't think so.
ort777 3 years ago
like trying to ban gay marriage. it's a religious thing. religion should not affect the law.
skylancer90 3 years ago
Uhhh, you'll have to start with our Declaration of Independance if you want to start that argument, dingleberry. You can't be that ignorant. Please study your history before making a foolish statement. Our founders were rooted in religion and weaved in through the law. Get real! Besides, people vote gay marriage out when it's put on the ballot and idiot judges legalize it. Who's out of control, here? Is it "We the People" or "I the Judge"?
ort777 3 years ago
A lot of the founders of this country weren't in fact Christians. It says in the Constitution: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." I'd appreciate if you'd just list facts without the filler to support your arguments. Stuff like "get real" doesn't push your argument at all, it just makes you obnoxious.
skylancer90 3 years ago
"A lot of the founders of this country weren't in fact Christians"
Uh, who's being obnoxious? This is just a complete distortion of FACT. I love how you libs do that.
What's your point in bringing up the "no religious test clause"? Here we go again with smoke and mirrors, liberal tactics. You distort intent and make it mean something that it doesn't. It might make you feel good but you're way off on this. Try again. You lose on gay marriage because "The People" don't want it!
ort777 3 years ago
You're really horrible at arguing. Complaining about distorted facts without presenting your own just makes you look like you're in denial. The truth is, they didn't want Christian beliefs affecting the laws, which is why they made laws like that and the freedom of religion. Obviously they understood that not everyone had the same religious beliefs so they wanted to keep everyone even, by not making any religion affect the laws. I'm pretty sure it says ALL men are created equal.
skylancer90 3 years ago
Come on, skylancer, try to rein it in a little. Your criticism of my argument technique doesn't offend me at all. What does offend me is your complete and utter ignorance. For you to state that our founders didn't want Christian beliefs affecting our laws is idiotic. They didn't want an established church determining laws (i.e. a specific denomination established by the State). If you knew anything about your history, you'd know this. But your off the cuff comments show your ignorance.
ort777 3 years ago
You're arguing this from a Christian perspective, I'm arguing from a sideline perspective. You're changing the meaning of what they say to fit your beliefs.
skylancer90 3 years ago
TYPICAL ACLU perspective. You are dead wrong. I've read the crap where you've picked up your material. Do me a favor: pick up a George Washington or Lincoln speech and see how he references his faith & God. There's no doubt, no doubt these men relied on their Christian faith. Your little pinheads out there telling you otherwise are lying.
ort777 3 years ago
I don't even know what the ACLU is, but just because some presidents believed in God doesn't mean it should affect our laws. Move on from the dark ages, we live in an age of science and logic.
skylancer90 3 years ago
Don't even know what the ACLU is? Well you've been doing a great job of spewing their talking points so this I find hard to believe. There are few educated people in this country that don't know what the ACLU is and if you're not aware, you'd better find out. They're doing all they can to ruin this country. Yes, I know your type. The kind that says science is always right and people of faith are idiots. Well, you have more faith than I do. Science changes like the wind.
ort777 3 years ago
"I know your type" the type that rely on facts and numbers? Yes, we sure are a misguided bunch.
skylancer90 3 years ago
I'm a numbers guy so don't even go there. No one knows numbers better than me. But here's where you go wrong every time:
Prove your theory of evolution. Then prove your theory of anthropogenic global warming. You do this and I'll show you how much faith your type has.
ort777 3 years ago
"i'm a numbers guy" yet you believe in one book over thousands of years more advanced scientific data. that's the beauty of science, the theories are just theories and it can change along with the more facts we know. meaning each time it changes, we get closer to the truth. with religion, you base your facts around what compliments your religion.
skylancer90 3 years ago
My foundation never changes. That's the beauty of truth. Your "science" is on ever shifting sands. Sure, there's good science but there's a lot of bad science, too. I pursue truth and trust in what's good. You've believed a bunch of lies about my faith. I'm sure it supports a lifestyle, too.
ort777 3 years ago
"my foundation never changes" that's called ignorance. if you aren't willing to accept things just because they dont coincide with your previously held belief system, that's remaining purposefully ignorant.
skylancer90 3 years ago
Obviously, you've never searched for truth. I have. When you do a serious search for it, you'll run smack into it like I have. I was in a place like you once but when I realized over the passage of time, science tends not to be able to stand the test of time. My faith does. The real science that matters is in line with my faith. The make up science that you put all your faith in, that helps support lifestyles, is a joke, a fantastic joke. THAT'S ignornace. You have no leg to stand on.
ort777 3 years ago
Skylancer, clearly what happens is people that want to live a certain lifestyle go out and find an excuse for doing so by saying science supports their worldview when in fact it conflicts. There are theories out there that are baseless and you reject counter-theories that threaten your worldview. So you end up looking like an extremist (which you are). You are not open to anything truthful-that's shocking to me.
Christians have stood 2000+ yrs of testing and flourished. You need to reconsider.
ort777 3 years ago
You think I'm an Atheist to support a certain lifestyle? I'm polite, I'm trying to get a job, I'm going to school, I respect my parents, I don't cause trouble. Nothing I do requires me to be an Atheist. If you met me in real life, I don't think you'd find anything disagreeable about the way I live. Making a stereotype that I chose this because I wanted to live a certain way is a big assumption you're in no position to make.
skylancer90 3 years ago
Did I ever say this? I have no problem with you, sky, no problem. I've worked with people that can't deal with God but where I have a problem with you is when you rewrite our history books and try somehow to remove God from our past. This is typical atheistic rantings and just isn't true. America was born with Christian roots and will continue that way depite people like you trying to tell us otherwise. Why do you have such a problem with God? He is all that is good & right.
ort777 3 years ago
Bravo! No one speaks likes this anymore as if our fine institutions and societies and government is an endless well needing no maintenance or comonality. Many in todays lexicon believe a stable society happens spontaneously, needing no sacrafice, no common values or commitment for future survival or upkeep. And marriage is just a narsacistic badge to be worn on one's chest like a Mercedes to prove one has "arrived." It all makes me sick. The 2nd end of Rome is at hand, a new dark age comes.
Z8nate 3 years ago
The basis of your argument (marriage as incentives promote child bearing) isn't strong.
The glaring issue is you don't provide any evidence to support the claim. While it could be a benefit that married people will have more children, there's no evidence that societies that don't have state marraiges don't bear children. Humans were having and raising children long before the invention of government and marriage.
melonballbounce 3 years ago
Moreover, even if you accept it that marriage is a tool encourage raising children, then what happens when the need for extra incentive disappears. With the current population desity, there are scientists pointing out overpopulation as a threat and no notable amount speaking of underpopulation. There is no current need to provide incentive to raise children. It's more favorable to provide incentives not to have children, implying straight marriage should be abolished and gay marriage allowed.
melonballbounce 3 years ago
I'm sorry but the "overpopulation" scare ended decades ago and while you may be correct about the continued utility of an incentive that simply encourages childbearing you must remember that marriage is a dual incentive... It encourages both childbearing and child rearing in combination, it is a complete package. It does not encourage the two apart from each other...
TheCollegePolitico 3 years ago
This is true and a decent critic of my theory, however you need to understand that what I say in the video is my best guess, based in logic, of what marriage is and why it exists in the first place. I'm open to counter theories but I have yet to hear a good one...
TheCollegePolitico 3 years ago
The point I have been trying to make is that if you support the state providing incentives for my widowed grandmother to remarry her new love or continuing to provide incentives to my parents to keep them together even after they've completed the task that was in the state's interest (producing and raising children), then you are already acknowledging another purpose of marriage. You don't need anyone to propose another theory to you. It's inherent in your position.
SylviaDM 3 years ago 3
I couldn't care less what this "1/3 of 1%" of the population does. It's not my business and I don't want to make it mine.
ragnarok9899 3 years ago
Ok, good for you... what does this have to do with anything I said?
TheCollegePolitico 3 years ago
excuse me, not only artificial semen but sperm banks as well.
blacksheepskateshop 3 years ago
What exactly is artificial semen? I'm pretty sure that doesn't exist... but your point has been addressed over and over again in the comments.
TheCollegePolitico 3 years ago
Sorry, insemination. Over and over in 31 comments? I just now read them, seems they proved your point wrong. Sorry for writing in.
blacksheepskateshop 3 years ago
Yes... its the same point that's been brought up by almost every comment. and I already answered it, if you don't like my answer and you have a reason then posting that would be productive. I'm just saying that everyone posting the same point that I've already addressed gets tiresome.
TheCollegePolitico 3 years ago
Why is gay marriage wrong? Gay men can adopt, lesbians can use artificial semen correct? We have too many kids in orphan homes, so if they want a family they can adopt.
And not every straight couple has a family....
In a few years, you are going to look back and think how stupid it is how we kept them from having a marriage.
blacksheepskateshop 3 years ago
I don't feel that you've really answered my argument so allow me to rephrase it. You have said that the state's interest in marriage is procreation. Despite that, the law allows couples who cannot or choose not to reproduce to marry. Essentially, you have a law that is "over inclusive". Unless you are willing to close those loopholes in the law, how can I take your argument seriously? I would submit that inherent in your position is an acknowledgement that procreation is not the only purpose
SylviaDM 3 years ago
of marriage, otherwise these other marriages would conflict with your premise and require exclusion from the law. If you leave these loopholes open, how can you legally justify continued exclusion for same sex couples, since the exclusion is NOT based on a procreative standard, which is the measure you proposed?
SylviaDM 3 years ago
You don't understand the difference between incentive and reward?
Let me try to explain it better.
You see when legal marriage was conceived I believe there was a reason for it. The people who conceived it realized that it was a huge benefit to the state for two heterosexuals to stay together for long periods of time because when they do that the likelihood they will produce AND raise their children skyrockets.
The same can, clearly, not be said of homosexuals.
TheCollegePolitico 3 years ago
And no, the states interest in marriage is not only procreation but rather procreation coupled with healthy and natural child rearing.
TheCollegePolitico 3 years ago
What interest does the state have in incentivizing a marriage between two 60 years olds who obviously are no more likely to reproduce and possibly less likely to raise children than a gay couple? Or for that matter what interest does the state have in continuing to provide incentives to keep a couple married after their children have grown up, moved out, and started their own lives? If the state's interest is in couples producing and raising children why provide incentives to couples who do not?
SylviaDM 3 years ago
In other words, you want these incentives targeted enough to exclude homosexuals on the basis of their inability to produce children, but not targeted enough to exclude heterosexual couples that are just as unlikely to produce children. Why is that?
SylviaDM 3 years ago
I am a Firefighter, my Partner is a Pilot, both served in the AF , together we have an adopted Daughter, and a civil union does not carry half of what we need as protection for our Family unit. The Will that we have does not close out a contest from his family if he should die before I do,,what should we do?
Clemburke1111 3 years ago
[As I ran out of room] Additionally, if the framework of a marriage is organized largely around childbearing, I have yet to hear of a case in which and infertile couple has been granted marital rights. After all, there are many children available to adopt, and I would certainly consider that a method of producing a child: via the care and commitment of two people devoted to each other.
rsword00 3 years ago
Your comment along with the 20 others makes me wonder why people never read the comments before theirs... I understand that this is probably the first time you've watched the video but this is about the thousandth time I've heard that argument and I'm just not going to respond to it again. Read the comments if you want to know what I think of your argument.
TheCollegePolitico 3 years ago
Part of the reason why allowing gay marriage does upset a larger population core outside of the strictly homosexual population bloc is simply due to the notice over the lack of civil rights? It's inane to justify a lack of "coverage" to a small demographic simply because they're small.
rsword00 3 years ago 2
I don't see where this decision is hurting you in anyway.
You still have rights to be married why is it such a big deal for two people that love each other to get a break from the government just like you and everyone else.
Have a great day
paulmdodson 3 years ago 2
its our right asshole
hawkdude351 3 years ago
Here's one of those idiotic responses I was talking about... How absolutely devoid of intelligence your comment is, it makes me laugh. Thank you
TheCollegePolitico 3 years ago
I think you have a rather skewed view of the point of marriage. The vast majority of benefits surrounding marriage deal with the orderly distribution of property and debt, so that two people can better take care of themselves and eachother. With the state recognizing marriage equality, it shores up the longth term welfare of an additional population. Without marriage, intestacy, insurance, debt-management, property ownership, and so on are more haphazard and costly for the state.
monitajb 3 years ago
Insurance companies will tell you that married people take fewer risks. They're also less likely to engage in socially or personally destructive behavior. And they tend to have greater economic output than they would have had individually.
So by granting same-sex marriage, the state can benefit from reduced criminal behavior (club drugs), reduced self-destructive behavior (promiscuous unprotected STD-transmitting sex) and an enlarged economy.
Sounds pretty good to me.
glorpy2 3 years ago
"...the group they're trying to appease makes up, at most, between 1/3 of 1% and 1% of the population..."
Actually, estimates are usually much higher. It is hard to determine the exact number, especially with so many gays living in the closet out of fear. Estimates are as low as 2% and as high as 10% for the U.S.
AnimalDude77 3 years ago
lmao - best point I heard so far against Gay marriage. Personally I'm straight and all marriage scares me.
What about gay couples that intend to adopt? Would that help?
Brainwavez 3 years ago
what people dont understand about gay marrige is so what if they cant have kids that just give them more incentive to adopt so think about the fucking orphans living in shitty low grade orphanages then a family comes along to help them so why should we have any say in someone elses life if we can ban gay marrige i saw we also ban alchohol all tobacco all religions and we convert to comunisim
twitchduke 3 years ago
sorry twitchduke I only read your post after making my last one.
Brainwavez 3 years ago
The incentive for the country to allow the members of the LGBT community to marry is the need for all parties involved to be protected. You said heterosexual marriage protect the continuation of the state.
Gay marriage also protects the continuation of state. Who you ask?
- The children that are abandoned or taken from their straight parent/s are can be adopted by gay couples. If one dies though marriage the child is still protected. Because of this the state is not filled with children
jdaniels83 3 years ago
Marriage is a way to legally strengthen the bond of two people who love each other. Up till now gays were the only ones excluded from that. Even polygamists can marry one person they love. So aside from the inequality under the law that prohibiting gay marriage presents, you forget that gay couples adopt and care for many of the unwanted children from straight couples which certainly benefits the state. Finally, if gays make up such a small % of the population, why do people fear them so much?
Permaglo 3 years ago 2
It's 1950. You're a white man who falls in love with a black woman. You want to marry her and make children. The state says you can't. Whites can only marry whites, and blacks can only marry blacks. A few years later an "Activist Court" makes a "ridiculous ruling" that says it's unconstitutional to deny you the right to marry, even though 70% of your fellow citizens think it should be against the law. Would you support this "ridiculous ruling" or would you go out and marry your beloved?
bearchao 3 years ago
How is skin color the same as what you do in the bedroom?
NewLantman 2 years ago
Same-sex couples can and do form families with children. That alone is a very important response to your argument, but the point I want emphasize is something else.
The state has more interest in marriage than simply keeping couples together for the sake of their hypothetical children. Comment space won't let me get too detailed here, but basically, marriage creates kinship between families, and bonds of kinship are positive and healthy for a society.
zortnac 3 years ago
Well, you seem to be a level-headed, intellingent man, even though I do not agree with your views on this issue. The "package of benefits intended to keep heterosexual couples together" doesn't really to that, does it? LOTS of heterosexual couples divorce, even if their religion forbids it. I think SylviaDM spoke very well to your point on procreation. And finally, the Supreme Court isn't "appeasing a minority" as you put it, it's the duty of our courts to protect minorities from the majority.
bearchao 3 years ago
Thank you, and yes it is true that marriage doesn't always succeed in keeping couples together but that fact doesn't disprove my claim that marriage is intended to keep couples together in order that they might have children and then raise those children. Right?
But as for the supreme court of California, thats not who I was addressing in this video, this video is more about the theory of what marriage is and what its intended to do and why it is incompatible with homosexual relationships.
TheCollegePolitico 3 years ago
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Whether or not marriage is intended to keep couples together so that they might reproduce, the fact of the matter is that it does not. Couples with children aren't imune from divorce, and unmarried couples have children all the time. Sorry, but not a valid argument.
If my partner were to be hospitalized, I would want to be at his bedside. If I die, I would want him to inherit my property. Why are these rights only for heterosexuals?
bearchao 3 years ago
I think that you've make the same mis-step as SylviaDM in examining my argument. You see marriage is not a reward system for staying together or having children but rather an incentive system aimed at getting people into a position where they are more likely to have children AND raise them in a healthy manor.
As for the legal rights you mentioned... well in many states (including California) gay couples can get those rights through civil unions and other legal means. I am not opposed to that.
TheCollegePolitico 3 years ago
I'm afraid I have to agree with SylviaDM. Marriage and procreation are not mutually exclusive.
As for the legal rights... Why is it ok that, just because I'm gay, I have to resort to legal means just to get the basic rights that heterosexual married couples enjoy? I've been with my partner for over 22 years, yet I am not his "next of kin" in the eyes of the law. I should not have to hire an attorney at great expense just to get some of the basic rights you take for granted.
bearchao 3 years ago 2
We all resort to legal means to get those rights to people we aren't related to... Thats what marriage is in the eyes of the state... its a legal contract that you have to enter into in order to gain the benefits it offers.
In other words, what I'm saying is, how is it any more difficult to get a civil union or power of attorney order that it is to get a marriage license?
TheCollegePolitico 3 years ago
You can go down to the courthouse and buy a marriage license (for what, $50?). You're done. You get married and enjoy all the rights of "next of kin".
My partner and I can register as domestic partners, but then have to hire an attorney to draw up the trusts, wills, and other documents to give us as many of the same protections, at considerable expense, that you get FOR FREE. Even then, none of it amounts to a hill of beans in the eyes of the federal government, but that's another matter
bearchao 3 years ago
Sorry, but I think you're missing something here. We let heterosexual couples who have no intention of having children or couples that cannot conceive children marry. Why should these couples reap the benefits of marriage if they are not fulfilling it's intended purpose? And if an exception can be extended to them, why not gay people as well? I really see no validity to your argument.
SylviaDM 3 years ago 2
That is a point that I have heard before as well. But the problem is that marriage is not a reward system for having and raising children but rather it is a package of incentives intended on putting people into a position where they are more likely to produce children AND raise them in a healthy environment. Do you see the difference?
TheCollegePolitico 3 years ago
I'm not sure that I understand any practical distinction between your ideas of reward and incentive. The reward is the incentive, isn't it? What incentive does an older couple that is past child bearing years have for getting married, for example? They are taking advantage of the legal benefits marriage offers. If procreation is the measure, how do you make a legal distinction between two non-child bearing couples without discriminating against one of them?
SylviaDM 3 years ago 3
I wasn't going to listen to your video, but after I did I was glad that I did. Your argument is very sound and reasonable. I'm glad that you didn't start ranting about "words from God" and how wrong it is from a religious standpoint.
reevaluate2008 3 years ago
Well I figured that case has been argued enough. I wanted to address the state/legal side of things. Thanks for the compliment.
TheCollegePolitico 3 years ago
Did you ever consider that Homosexual couples are still capable of raising children that heterosexual couples abandoned in orphanages?
silvertwili 3 years ago
yes, But that certainly isn't the intended purpose of same-sex marriage. And in fact using a package of incentives to encourage people to partner with those of the same-sex is damaging to the longevity of the state.
TheCollegePolitico 3 years ago
I'm sorry. I don't think any package of incentives is going to encourage heterosexuals to suddenly start entering into gay relationships. I also don't understand how giving gay couples equal protection under the law is damaging to the longevity of the state. Please tell me how exactly the damage occurs...
bearchao 3 years ago
Well, sexuality is an extremely complicated issue. What exactly influences orientation is still hotly debated... I believe that their are in fact many things that influence it to different degrees.
With that being said would you agree that marriage encourages people to enter into long term heterosexual relationships?
If so then similarly wouldn't gay marriage encourage people to enter into long term homosexual relationships?
TheCollegePolitico 3 years ago
And since those relationships don't naturally produce and raise children. Wouldn't it be counter productive for the state to encourage people to enter into those relationships if the state is interested in its own longevity?
TheCollegePolitico 3 years ago
I don't see how it's wrong to encourage homosexuals to enter into long term relationships. I KNOW it's not going to encourage heterosexuals to enter into long term homosexual relationships. So I don't see the threat.
Lastly, there are many heterosexual marriages that do not produce children, for whatever reason. Should the state then make it a reguirement of marriage that children be produced if it's in the state's best interest?
Slippery slope we're going down.....
bearchao 3 years ago 2