Marriage and equality.

myp · Nov 13, 2012

Hammer said:
What utility is there in the state recognizing same-sex relationships?

The increased utility of those who can then legally get married of course.

Hammer said:
I think it's too intrusive if the government required fertility tests for all valid marriages, especially given that most fertility problems can be treated.

That is not what I was suggesting- far from it. You just made the argument that heterosexual marriages are superior because they can reproduce, but that isn't always the case. So does that mean you think heterosexual marriages that can make babies are better than those in which the woman can't get pregnant (either due to her or her partner's biology)?

clax · Nov 13, 2012

Hammer said:
Heterosexual marriage is superior. Heterosexual relationships are on the only ones that produce children. And, for the sake of the children, the government has an interest in promoting a stable home environment.

The purpose of homosexual "marriage" is to force others to accept this lifestyle, which offers no benefit to society.

Marriage is civil union, out has nothing to do with children. I have taken in a child that a wonderfully equipped heterosexual couple saw fit to cast out like garbage. so for the sake of children quit pretending that marriage is of any consequence. Heterosexual people have butchered marriage. Sorry, they are not supreme. If I mated with a female I could produce a child, so being gay really has nothing to do with having kids.

Nobody has to accept it, but continued discrimination is not people not accepting it, it is further denial of reality

clax · Nov 13, 2012

Hammer said:
What utility is there in the state recognizing same-sex relationships?

I think it's too intrusive if the government required fertility tests for all valid marriages, especially given that most fertility problems can be treated.

Provide a civil union to a couple that is a couple no matter how legal civil union is. When gay couples can do everything (almost) that married couples can do.

My boy friend was told by his folks never to return home, he has lived with me for several years. We are family. But if he gets hurt the scum that tossed him out and said that he was dead to them gets the right to decide what happens to him. That is the main reason I want same sex marriage legalized. Marriage, civil union butt buddies, what ever you want to call it.

Hammer · Nov 14, 2012

myp said:
The increased utility of those who can then legally get married of course.

Normally, people don't think of adding a government licence to a legal activity as making something legal, but as a step toward government control. Either way, where's the utility in the government promoting non-productive behavior?

That is not what I was suggesting- far from it. You just made the argument that heterosexual marriages are superior because they can reproduce, but that isn't always the case. So does that mean you think heterosexual marriages that can make babies are better than those in which the woman can't get pregnant (either due to her or her partner's biology)?

I think the government has more interest in relationships with children than those without.

Hammer · Nov 14, 2012

clax said:
Marriage is civil union, out has nothing to do with children.

Congratulations on totally avoiding the point. Unless you just have a fetish for whips and big government, why should the government be involved in your personal relationships? (Of course, homosexual activists are all BSers. It's not about wanting the government in their relationships, it's about wanting the government to impose homosexual values on the whole public. Very much the opposite of expanding what which is legal.)

I have taken in a child that a wonderfully equipped heterosexual couple saw fit to cast out like garbage.

No doubt, that child you took in was produced outside of marriage. Which is the point, to promote marriage so that less welfare is needed and fewer children are "cast out."

Nobody has to accept it, but continued discrimination is not people not accepting it, it is further denial of reality

"Discrimination" is a pejorative term for freedom. Liberals hate freedom (and morality).

Iolo · Nov 14, 2012

Cerise said:
Its not unknown for 'mature' people to mess up childrens lives.

Not by my definition it isn't.

myp · Nov 14, 2012

Hammer said:
Normally, people don't think of adding a government licence to a legal activity as making something legal, but as a step toward government control. Either way, where's the utility in the government promoting non-productive behavior?

I think the government has more interest in relationships with children than those without.

I have the same response to both your points and that is that you are misunderstanding what I mean when I say utility. Loosely put, economically utility is often synonymous with happiness. Net utility increases by allowing gay marriage.

Also, in the sense that you were using the word utility, having more good couples to adopt unfortunate children is a productive behavior too.

clax · Nov 14, 2012

Hammer said:
Congratulations on totally avoiding the point. Unless you just have a fetish for whips and big government, why should the government be involved in your personal relationships? (Of course, homosexual activists are all BSers. It's not about wanting the government in their relationships, it's about wanting the government to impose homosexual values on the whole public. Very much the opposite of expanding what which is legal.)

No doubt, that child you took in was produced outside of marriage. Which is the point, to promote marriage so that less welfare is needed and fewer children are "cast out."

"Discrimination" is a pejorative term for freedom. Liberals hate freedom (and morality).

Honestly the whip and chain comment that sounds like you have a fetish, I never bright that up mind in the gutter, okay, don't drag me into it. You are arguing against merriage in general, the government OS involved in all marriage.

The child that I took in is my lovers little brother, their parents are married, they are just assholes. You need too be more coherent, are you against homosexual marriage because they will sire children that they do not care for? But government shouldn't be involved in merriage, yet heterosexual merriage is the biggest threat to merriage. We need to protect children from homosexual people???????????????

????WHAT?!?!?!

You are contradicting your self in so many ways it isn't even coherent

I am actually quite conservative, but your assumption is clear that all of your statements were a knew jerk response

The reason why it is discrimination is because my lover is male, if he was female then out wouldn't be an issue. It is sexual discrimination. The purpose of merriage isn't to have children, homosexuals can do that two by the way, out is to pair assets. It is to have adomestoc partner.

Hammer · Nov 14, 2012

myp said:
I have the same response to both your points and that is that you are misunderstanding what I mean when I say utility. Loosely put, economically utility is often synonymous with happiness. Net utility increases by allowing gay marriage.

Your premise is a lie. Before state-licensed same-sex marriage, homosexuals were free to live as they chose. Besides, I don't see much evidence that the homosexual lifestyle has "utility", either in terms of the happiness of the miserable reprobates or in terms of government interest. AIDS, suicide, ans short lives distinguish homosexuals... oh, and all those angry protests are not the protests of a happy people.

Also, in the sense that you were using the word utility, having more good couples to adopt unfortunate children is a productive behavior too.

Spoken like a Liberal. You count success by how many people are in need. I count success by how many people aren't in need, in the first place

Hammer · Nov 14, 2012

clax said:
Honestly the whip and chain comment that sounds like you have a fetish

Are you being obtuse by choice? I used the whip as a symbol of government. You think your happiness lays in the government, which is force by definition.

The child that I took in is my lovers little brother, their parents are married, they are just assholes. You need too be more coherent, are you against homosexual marriage because they will sire children that they do not care for?

It's in the government's interest to promote heterosexual marriage so that people are more likely to want the children the sire. But, what's the government's interest in promoting homosexual marriage? Something other than "discrimination", because I see nothing inherently wrong with discrimination, and neither does anyone else, no matter what blind hypocrites insist.

tecoyah · Nov 14, 2012

Hammer said:
Are you being obtuse by choice? I used the whip as a symbol of government. You think your happiness lays in the government, which is force by definition.

It's in the government's interest to promote heterosexual marriage so that people are more likely to want the children the sire. But, what's the government's interest in promoting homosexual marriage? Something other than "discrimination", because I see nothing inherently wrong with discrimination, and neither does anyone else, no matter what blind hypocrites insist.

Our government has an interest in promoting equality within society in order to allow for the pusuit of life, liberty, and happiness for every citizen. Your assumption that no one else cares about discrimination is simply incorrect, "Blind Hypocrit" or not.

It is bad enough that you speak for yourself...please refrain from speaking for "Anyone Else".

Cerise · Nov 14, 2012

Iolo said:
Not by my definition it isn't.

Please explain.

clax · Nov 14, 2012

Hammer said:
Are you being obtuse by choice? I used the whip as a symbol of government. You think your happiness lays in the government, which is force by definition.

This is true about all marriage, there are benefits in marriage that a homosexual couple doesn't receive, visitation rights, custody, power of attorny these are the things being denied to homosexual couples. It isn't denying homosexuals married status that is the issue, it ifs all the benefits exclusive to marriage. Why support any marriage, aren't they all symbolized by your whip and chain notion

Hammer said:
It's in the government's interest to promote heterosexual marriage so that people are more likely to want the children the sire. But, what's the government's interest in promoting homosexual marriage? Something other than "discrimination", because I see nothing inherently wrong with discrimination, and neither does anyone else, no matter what blind hypocrites insist.

The government isn't a promotional campaign, it is a servant of the people, who cares what they promote. I have a child, homosexuals can adopt unwanted children, they do. Why is it better for these unwanted kids to rott in an orphanage

Hammer · Nov 14, 2012

tecoyah said:
Our government has an interest in promoting equality within society in order to allow for the pusuit of life, liberty, and happiness for every citizen. Your assumption that no one else cares about discrimination is simply incorrect, "Blind Hypocrit" or not.

I'll put you down as supporting old men having "marriage" with young boys. Else, you'd be supporting discrimination.

clax · Nov 14, 2012

Hammer said:
I'll put you down as supporting old men having "marriage" with young boys. Else, you'd be supporting discrimination.

Children cannot enter a contract such as marriage. That requires changing the law that makes a person an adult.

tecoyah · Nov 15, 2012

Hammer said:
I'll put you down as supporting old men having "marriage" with young boys. Else, you'd be supporting discrimination.

Okay...I suppose when unable to reply to a comment with intelligent thought, using extremes and scarecrows could possibly work.

...it just did not do much this time.

Iolo · Nov 15, 2012

Cerise said:
Please explain.

I mean by mature peope people who think deeply before having children and, when they've got them, put their interests first and teach them as much maturity as the young can take. I don't think that can muck up people's lives

Hammer · Nov 15, 2012

clax said:
Children cannot enter a contract such as marriage. That requires changing the law that makes a person an adult.

I see, you're an advocate of changing the law to eliminate age discrimination, so that men can engage in government-blessed pedophile relationships (which, unlike sodomy between adults, really is illegal now, in the first place). After you accomplish that, how about ending blood-relationship discrimination that prevents father and son from getting married.

clax · Nov 15, 2012

Hammer said:
I see, you're an advocate of changing the law to eliminate age discrimination, so that men can engage in government-blessed pedophile relationships (which, unlike sodomy between adults, really is illegal now, in the first place). After you accomplish that, how about ending blood-relationship discrimination that prevents father and son from getting married.

No, you can read I assume, gay marriage wouldn't include juvenile adult marriage, I explained why, children can't enter into contracts. Removing the discrimination against same sex marriage wouldn't open that door, you opened it. I am not exactly sure why, perhaps it is because you have no real argument against equal marriage aside from you think it is icky.

myp · Nov 15, 2012

The child exception comes down to this- they can't consent. They cannot think appropriately for themselves and thus are barred from getting married, etc. at such a young age. And from a utility perspective, it seems to work out.

Marriage and equality.

Similar threads