Marriage defined by "love?" Or Children's interests? Why "Gay Marriage" is mista

On the other hand...

One argument that hasn't been made (perhaps because it is flawed?) is that granting marriage (or civil unions) to same-sex couples would seriously reduce tax revenue to the point where the government might decide to reduce the tax benefits for all married couples to compensate. Of course, the government could also compensate by raising (eeek!) taxes. Has there been any serious analysis as to what gay marriage/unions would do to federal/state tax revenues or employer provided benefits?

Of course this argument ignores the sensible rightness of equality, preferring instead to protect the monetary benefits heterosexuals gain by being subsidized by the government. Sorta like wellfare. Hmmmmm....

 

Re: Could it be...

The problem is that gay marriage does not conform with societal norms. Even here in Massachusetts, the majority of citizens are against gay marriage. If the votes are there for a Constitutional Amendment, then it will pass. Too bad if it hurts some people's feelings. In the future, if the votes are there to repeal it, then it will be repealed. Too bad if that hurts some people's feelings. That's how our government works, and it's worked pretty damn well for 200+ years.

What we have now is the morality of a minority being foisted on the majority by a few activist judges and rogue politicians. That goes against almost everything that this country stands for.

 

I'm just wondering did anyone on here think that the speech Bush gave on how marriage is our society's most valuable institutions bla bla bla, was a joke? If marriage really is one of the most valuable institutions in our society, then from judging the way most marriages in North America end, all I have to say is that are society is really screwed up?

 

I am certainly not a Biblical scholar. Could someone point me to the passages in the Bible that talk about homosexual marriage, or the definition of marriage in general.

Thanks.

 

Re: Re: Could it be...

And, again, this is exactly what people said about interracial marriage, at least in some states. How does this differ? Or perhaps it does not. Are you also against interracial marriage?

 

Re: Re: Re: Could it be...

In some ways, it doesn't.

In the highly unlikely event that a Constitutional Amendment was drafted that outlawed interracial marriage, it passed both houses of Congress, the President signed it, and 3/4 (or is it 2/3...I forget) of the state legislatures passed it, then it would become law. The Supreme Court couldn't do anything about it, because how can you declare the Constitution to be unconstitutional?

Of course the above scenario would never happen, but it illustrates my point. Right now, gay marriage is opposed by the majority. If that majority can get an Amendment passed, then it doesn't matter who gets offended......it becomes law. If future generations decide that gay marriage is okay, then they can vote to repeal it. Very simple.

One of the concepts that some people are finding hard to grasp is that making law is the purview of the legislative branch, not the judicial. Activist groups are so used to getting their way through the courts that they are now shocked when the majority are fed-up and are going to challenge them.

 

Biblical justification

>>Homosexual marriages violate Biblical ethics and morality. <<

The KJV Bible also approves of polygamy, slavery and killing witches - and forbids divorce.

The argument over gay marriage should be one of strict legality. Religion is a private choice and should not dictate the rule of contracts between individuals and the state, which is what a marrige currently is.

A life partner should be granted all the same legal advantages and disadvantages no matter their sex.

If someone tried to change the law so that gay marriages had to be recognized by a church, I would be opposed.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Could it be...

I appreciate your honesty in stating that in many ways this does not differ from the protests against interracial marriage (though I would be interested in hearing your explanation of the ways in which it does differ.)

You make some good points. (Except for the very minor point that the President does not have to sign a Constitutional Amendment.)

Do you also disagree with the Brown vs. Board of Education decision where the Supreme Court stepped in and "made law?"

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Could it be...

This is a common argument used by those who want to deflect the truth -- that this issue is NOT about judicial activism! If it were there would have been countless amendments to thwart a rogue judicial system. Today's issue concerning gay marriage is but a symptom of an unconstrained judicial system. But instead of enacting an amendment to fix this problem, we get people proposing to ban gay marriage!

So I would encourage these people to be truthful. Argue the real beef or fix the real problem. Don't play bait and switch with us.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Could it be...

Yes, but long term trends show that this is a shrinking majority. Resorting to technical fixes such as amending the constitution is simply an admission that this argument is losing the debate amongst US opinions.

Soooo, if we are losing the debate, let's just change the rules.... nah nah nee nah nah!

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could it be...

I wasn't around back then to agree or disagree.

In a historical context, I think it was a bad decision in a couple of ways;

1) I am always leery of the Feds interjecting themselves into the affairs of a state. The 10th Amendment is now, for all intents & purposes, meaningless.

2) The consequences of the decision have been disastrous. Look no further than my own backyard, Boston. Forced busing tore the city apart and did absolutely nothing to improve the quality of education. Millions of dollars were spent and people's childhoods were destroyed for nothing.

IMO, the courts (especially the Federal courts) have way too much power, and have made themselves a de facto second Congress. That's a recipe for disaster.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could it be...

It's all about judicial activism.

The only reason there aren't countless amendments is because it's (rightfully) extremely difficult to amend the Constitution. You have to pick your battles, and it appears that gay marriage is going to be the lightning rod for conservatives that gets them moving on the process. If they're successful, it doesn't matter one bit what you or I think about it.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could it be...

Ummm....no.

Here in MA, the polls were very close (something like 52-43-5) before it became front-page news. Now the majority of those in opposition is larger than before the media circus. IMO, it's because people are starting to figure out exactly how bad this would open the floodgates.

 

Re: Re: Could it be...

You know what, federal and state constitutions essentially allow courts to legislate from the bench.

Yes, I whole heartedly agree!

 

Polls?

>>Here in MA, the polls were very close (something like 52-43-5) before it became front-page news. Now the majority of those in opposition is larger than before the media circus. IMO, it's because people are starting to figure out exactly how bad this would open the floodgates.<<

Or it could be that people get more vocal over things that are being pushed by their political party. I would have to ask who ran the poll and what exactly was the question they asked?

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could it be...

You are certainly consistent.

In my opinion, segregation and discrimination are a recipe for disaster. But to each his own (at least until "the majority" passes a Constitutional Amendment outlawing dissenting opinions.)

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could it be...

(I had made the point that the anti-gay majority concerning marriage is a shinking majority...)

Okay, go back 5 years, then 10, then 20, then 50.... Then report back to the group on the trend. Small term blips over the span of a few weeks aren't really relevant in measuring cultural revolutions.

 

Re: Marriage defined by "love?" Or Children's interests? Why "Gay Marriage" is m

Hey, I like this point! So let's take away marriage benefits and instead give those benefits only to people having children! People who get married and don't have children are such greedy dead weights on society after all.

 

Re: Re: Re: Could it be...

Actually, the US Constitution expressly forbids it. Read the 10th Amendment.

 

Re: On the other hand...

Here's a suggestion:

Eliminate any legal recognition of marriage for anyone. Leave marriage simply as a cultural institution without any kind of legal force.

Replace it with legal recognition of and possible tax and other benefits for parents and legal guardians of children. That way childless married couples would no longer receive benefits that are denied to single people.

And perhaps marriage could also be replaced with some kind of mutual-aid partnerships involving specified rights under community property, probate and other relevant law.

Making the legal rights and responsibilities formerly associated with marriage more abstract would help free them from all the historical, cultural and religious sediments that have built up around the institution over the millenia.