Being Gay Is Like a Handicap

[erowe1]

Mea culpa for the ad hominem.

Now lets talk about opinions, not law or the interpretation thereof...

My opinion on homos availing themselves of the same benefits as heteros should be pretty clear as much as I've typed in this thread.

What is your opinion on the matter erowe?

I completely disagree. The law makes no distinction between homosexuals and heterosexuals. It does make a distinction between married and unmarried. I agree that it should not do that. I disagree that broadening the definition to included same-sex couples would in any way improve that situation. I believe it would worsen it.

I'm glad you brought up Social Security as your main example, because to me that's a big point against broadening the definition. Right or wrong, the whole justification of spousal benefits presupposes a traditional model of marriage, where the wife will have forgone her own career to raise children and been dependent on the earnings of the husband. It makes no sense in the context of same-sex couples. To expand it (and all the costs of it, which are already unaffordable) is a perfect example of mission creep, where a government program gets redirected into something totally different than its original purpose. In this case, the new purpose would be to push a social agenda that I can't support, and nor should anyone else.

Furthermore, like I said to Jules, if the goal is to get government out of marriage, then expanding marriage to include same-sex couples is essentially conceding total defeat in that.

 

[jmdrake]

If black people had the same rights as everybody except they couldn't get married, should we stop legislation to allow them to get married in fear that some day they may have more rights than white people? Is that how it works? So this is like a WWI battle with trenches and enemy lines? Why can't we all be on the same team?

Except gays can get married. Polygamists can't get married. Now that gays can't get things like spousal benefits for social security. (Although I'm not sure if that's totally the case after the SC's last ruling.) That said, I'm on team "Let's fundamentally change social security so that you can designate whoever or whatever will get your benefits just like you can with a 401K". Yeah, I know. There's team "Sure. Sounds great. But in the meantime lets join the expand the definition of marriage team." I'm like "Sure. Go ahead. Join that team. It will hurt Rand in the primaries if he's seen as associated with it. And it will probably make detangling the federal government from marriage all that more difficult because the federal marriage benefit constituency will be even larger. But sure. Join it." But no. So folks can't accept me being on a team that they agree with if I'm not also on their temporary stop gap team. Oh, and where do people sign up for the "I really hope the law suits forcing people who don't support homosexuality to bake wedding cakes for gay couples are just a fluke and that this doesn't spread" team? Then again, the black Christian conservatives who blindly support Obama probably deserve the rude awakening that's headed their way thanks to their dear leader.

 

[PierzStyx]

If black people had the same rights as everybody except they couldn't get married, should we stop legislation to allow them to get married in fear that some day they may have more rights than white people? Is that how it works? So this is like a WWI battle with trenches and enemy lines? Why can't we all be on the same team?

Marriage legislation is slavery and teh assumption of government of what should be a free right. NO marriage legislation protects freedom.

 

[VIDEODROME]

I don't want marriage to be legally recognized. Period.
I don't want the government to have any say in the matter. For or against.
No license,, no benefits,, no restrictions,, nothing.

It is none of their business.

What if 2 people make a private Marriage "Contract"?

Then the government only backs up their contract terms?

 

[muzzled dogg]

yeah in a lot of ways the modern state puts gay couples at a disadvantage

 

[PaulConventionWV]

But what if they don't make a contract and suddenly divorce?

Then see option B in that same post. Too bad, so sad. Should've made a contract but didn't. Why is that the law's responsibility?

You will see a huge increase in reported child kidnappings.

And you know this... how? Even if that is the case, it doesn't matter. Kidnapping is already against the law.

 

[otherone]

The law makes no distinction between homosexuals and heterosexuals. It does make a distinction between married and unmarried. I agree that it should not do that.

This is an interesting point. The law is silent on sexuality. In practice, the law is actually guilty of gender bias. I wonder if that avenue has been explored.

 

[PierzStyx]

Meh.

If you believe the point of organic life is evolution through reproduction then homosexuality could easily be seen as a handicap. They're evolutionary dead ends.

 

[fr33]

Sometimes I think the quickest way to end govt involvement in marriage is to add homosexuals into the mix but my feeling is that society will just get used to it just like they got used to allowing interracial couples to share space in the institution of govt recognized marriage.

I'm pretty sure we won't get rid of govt involvement in marriage until govt involvement with most other things has gone away. In other words; not in our lifetimes. Probably about 10% of the population (us Ron Paul supporters) support getting the govt out of marriage. But that 10% is even less in reality. There's an even smaller percentage of us that would abandon that stance if they thought it was a winning platform. The gays will get their govt approved marriage and this is not the hill to die on.

Things like the FDA, EPA, CPS, etc will disappear long before govt marriage licensing will.