Is It Overall In A Nation's Interest To Recognize Gay Marriage?

[Kitty]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='09 October 2009 - 12:27 AM' timestamp='1255062478' post='1981494']
Marriage is a natural contract.
[/quote]

But marriage (by that I mean a marriage authorized by a church or a state) does not occur in nature. Finding a mate, or several over a period of time, does occur in nature.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='08 October 2009 - 08:41 PM' timestamp='1255048901' post='1981338']
i think this is a great thread idea.
aside from religious arguments, i see no reason why it wouldnt be allowed or any reason that it would hurt the state. its not like it would reduce the amount of heterosexual baby producing marriages[/quote]

But that is not a beneficial reason yet. Your only claiming it won't hurt the baby-making, which I doubt since some homosexual people do end up marrying a women and having kids and then later they regret it and go look for their gratification elsewhere.

[quote]in terms of social status, as more powerful nations accept gay marriage, it might make the state look good to follow suit.
in terms of people directly affected by it, letting gay people marry would make a lot of people happy. on the otherhand lots of people who really arent affected at all in any way could get furious.[/quote]

Haven't given a beneficial reason yet! Political points are "feel good" and don't really benefit your society/nation.

[quote]polygamy on the other hand, not a good thing from any perspective. it fosters disrespect for women, is entirely based on greed and does a disservice to any children from such unions. like all the young men who get exiled so there are more women for the older men.

the only reason i could see for polygamy would be as a brief stopgap after an event like a world war where there is all of a sudden a huge disparity between the surviving men and women. even then, as baby boomers are evidence of, the old fashioned way still works in that situation
[/quote]

Oh boy.......I could use the same argument against gay marriage basically and I would be depriving someone of their right! You better come up with a better reason to be for gay marriage and not polygamy. You can't choose one over the other with the reasons you use to advance gay marriage as they can be justly used for polygamy.

[quote name='Socrates' date='08 October 2009 - 10:09 PM' timestamp='1255054187' post='1981368']
The issue should not be whether something benefits [i]the state[/i], but rather the good of society. Personally, I tend to be wary of things that benefit the state. "Gay marriage" would not hurt the state, but would not be benefiical to society, as it rewards perversion and puts it on par with the good of marriage.[/quote]

What I am trying to get at with this thread. How does gay marriage benefit society besides "feel good" points?


[quote]I find it somewhat amusing that most of the supporters of homosexual "marriage" are still so opposed to polygamy. Really, there's no coherent reason for supporting "gay marriage" and at the same time opposing polygamy.

Supporters of polygamy would dismiss your arguments as pure prejudice, much as you do against those opposing "gay marriage."

If a man and several women claim to be in love, or a woman and several men (who says polygamy has to be biased against women?) or several men and several women, who are you to say them nay?
How is it your place to declare that polygamy fosters disrespect for women, is based "entirely on greed" or is a disservice to children?

Besides, polygamy has been an accepted form of marriage in many cultures through history, while nowhere, not even in sodomy-accepting ancient Greece and Rome, were homosexual "unions" considered to be on par with marriage. And polygamy is at least tied to reproduction and raising children, while homosexual sodomy is not.
,
Once we base our legal definition of marriage on nothing but subjective feelings of "love" and other mush-headed sentiment, there is really no reason for the state to deny [i]any[/i] forms of "unions" as marriage.
[/quote]

Yes!



[b]So we are on our third page and I have not seen a reason as to why gay marriage benefits society![/b]

[eagle_eye222001]

Le double post.

Edited October 9, 2009 by eagle_eye222001

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' date='09 October 2009 - 01:00 AM' timestamp='1255064438' post='1981528']
What I am trying to get at with this thread. How does gay marriage benefit society besides "feel good" points?

[b]So we are on our third page and I have not seen a reason as to why gay marriage benefits society![/b]
[/quote]

Is your question "does it benefit society to recognize homosexual civil unions" or is it, "do homosexual unions benefit society?" They are two distinct questions. Insofar as "recognizing homosexual civil unions" means "not using physical force against people who want to pretend that they're married," then yes, it benefits society to recognize them. That is not to say that homosexual unions themselves benefit society.

The fact that a behavior is not in the best interest of the individual, or that it does not "benefit society" do not in themselves justify using physical force against the actor.

Similarly, the fact that a behavior may benefit the individuals who comprise society does [i]not[/i] justify taking money through force or the threat of force in order to subsidize it.

If Adam and Steve want to live in a house down the street and pretend they are married, it does not violate my life, liberty or property. I have no right to use force against them. Nor does "society" (or [i]any[/i] number of individuals) have the right to force me to call a truly married couple "Mr. and Mrs.," or to subsidize them through special breaks [i]because[/i] they're married.

~Sternhauser

Edited October 9, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Varg]

[quote name='notardillacid' date='08 October 2009 - 07:17 PM' timestamp='1255043832' post='1981281']
I bet you think that condoms prevent the spread of AIDS in Africa too
[/quote]It wouldn't completely prevent it but it would reduce the spread.

Edited October 9, 2009 by Varg

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Varg' date='09 October 2009 - 10:08 AM' timestamp='1255100907' post='1981647']
It wouldn't completely prevent it but it would reduce the spread.
[/quote]
Not according to the statistics thus far.

[Varg]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='09 October 2009 - 11:42 AM' timestamp='1255102961' post='1981664']
Not according to the statistics thus far.
[/quote]If you listen to the Pope, yes. But the Pope is not renowned for being a genius at science, no offence.

Edited October 9, 2009 by Varg

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Varg' date='09 October 2009 - 10:59 AM' timestamp='1255103957' post='1981671']
If you listen to the Pope, yes. But the Pope is not renowned for being a genius at science, no offence.
[/quote]
What about all the people in the field who are reluctantly admitting that he's got a point?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='09 October 2009 - 09:53 PM' timestamp='1255139634' post='1982127']
What about all the people in the field who are reluctantly admitting that he's got a point?
[/quote]

Not that I doubt the veracity of what you're saying, Nihil, but you know you can't say something like that without naming some names.

~Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='09 October 2009 - 09:04 PM' timestamp='1255140258' post='1982137']
Not that I doubt the veracity of what you're saying, Nihil, but you know you can't say something like that without naming some names.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
You are correct. I'm lazy and not very smart.
Senior Harvard Research Scientist for AIDS Prevention, Dr. Edward Green is one of the biggest names who's come out in support of the Pope's statements.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='09 October 2009 - 10:07 PM' timestamp='1255140473' post='1982144']
Senior Harvard Research Scientist for AIDS Prevention, Dr. Edward Green is one of the biggest names who's come out in support of the Pope's statements.
[/quote]

There's a pretty good example. Another is "René Ecochard, director of the biostatistics department at Lyons University Hospital Center." [url="http://www.zenit.org/article-26873?l=english"]http://www.zenit.org...26873?l=english[/url]

~Sternhauser

Edited October 10, 2009 by Sternhauser

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='09 October 2009 - 09:51 AM' timestamp='1255096305' post='1981622']
Is your question "does it benefit society to recognize homosexual civil unions" or is it, "do homosexual unions benefit society?" They are two distinct questions. Insofar as "recognizing homosexual civil unions" means "not using physical force against people who want to pretend that they're married," then yes, it benefits society to recognize them. That is not to say that homosexual unions themselves benefit society.

The fact that a behavior is not in the best interest of the individual, or that it does not "benefit society" do not in themselves justify using physical force against the actor.

Similarly, the fact that a behavior may benefit the individuals who comprise society does [i]not[/i] justify taking money through force or the threat of force in order to subsidize it.

If Adam and Steve want to live in a house down the street and pretend they are married, it does not violate my life, liberty or property. I have no right to use force against them. Nor does "society" (or [i]any[/i] number of individuals) have the right to force me to call a truly married couple "Mr. and Mrs.," or to subsidize them through special breaks [i]because[/i] they're married.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Uh, my point was to ask what benefits recognizing gay marriage brought to a society and whether this was overall better than not recognizing them. Basically is society better off with DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) or is it better off removing it and extending marital benefits to such relations?

I'm fine if people want to live as they privately want too....I'm not fine with the government recognizing it.

[Mark of the Cross]

Here in social security Oz, from a non religious point of view, a couple receiving single pensions would be at an advantage over a married couple who get less combined. Presently de facto relationships are recognised for the purpose of social security so as not to disadvantage married couples. Logically gay relationships need to be treated the same. However doesn't the term [i]marriage [/i]belong to religious unions in which case Gay marriage is not relative to a nations interest.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' date='10 October 2009 - 12:12 AM' timestamp='1255147979' post='1982224']
Uh, my point was to ask what benefits recognizing gay marriage brought to a society and whether this was overall better than not recognizing them. Basically is society better off with DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) or is it better off removing it and extending marital benefits to such relations?

I'm fine if people want to live as they privately want too....I'm not fine with the government recognizing it.
[/quote]

"Society" does not extend special benefits to anyone by force or threat thereof. The State does. Society is made up of individuals interacting in mutually-beneficial, voluntary exchanges. There is a reason we call robbery and murder "anti-social" behaviors.

Ideological and formal entities, such as institution of marriage, cannot be defended with force. One can defend individual human beings from real physical threats with force. Gay unions do not pose a real physical threat to human beings.

The State has no right to extend special benefits to anyone, married or homosexual, white or black.

Should society believe gays can get married? No. Should violence be used to help fund truly married people? No.

~Sternhauser

Edited October 10, 2009 by Sternhauser

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='10 October 2009 - 03:09 PM' timestamp='1255201789' post='1982488']
...The State has no right to extend special benefits to anyone, married or homosexual, white or black. [/quote]

Why not?