Vermont Legislature Legalizes Gay MarriageFollow

Honestly, in the 80s, it made sense. But, as many of us have already dsaid, with current technology, there is ABSOLUTELY no reason why the law should still exist. It's not like they don't test the blood for these things before giving it to others.

Also, if you really want to push the issue, it would be really easy to make a requirement for blood donation where people have to bring something from their doctor, from within the last month or so, that says that they're in good health. Hence making the law pointless and unneeded.

This is not really an issue that requires much energy to deal with.

As far as blood donation is concerned, and I'll say this once again, newer technology makes this point invalid. argument pointless.



Edited, Apr 10th 2009 3:20pm by Driftwood

It doesn't when you are a woman loving woman, you ******. It actually decreases your likelihood.

OH CRAP! They're on to us!

So does heterosexuality, genius.

I don't recall how thoroughly I may have responded to any single point, but I most definitely responded to the broad argument that encouraging gay marriage in society is just as important as encouraging heterosexual marriage. IIRC, my argument went something like this:

Take two sets of cases:

Case one:

a) 100% of heterosexual couples get married.

b) 0% of heterosexual couples get married.

Compare the good vs harm each of those conditions would cause to the society as a whole. And yes. Take into account the fact that 100% of all children born in condition b will be born (and mostly cared for) by single mothers.

Case two:

a) 100% of gay couples get married.

b) 0% of gay couples get married.

Same thing. Compare the good vs harm each of those conditions would cause. Are we hurt much if no gay couples ever marry?


My argument was that the harm caused to society in Case 1b would be catastrophic, in terms of crime rates, poverty rates, and general wellbeing of the citizens. Meanwhile, Case 2b pretty much doesn't hurt us at all. Aside from the incredibly minor benefit to society from having people form socio-economic bonds there just isn't much difference between 2a and 2b. Some incredibly tiny percentage of children born to lesbians might be better off, but then we can argue they'd be even more better off if their biological fathers were allowed to be involved in their lives.


Yes. My argument revolves almost entirely around the effects on children born within the society as a whole. I guess the counter question is: If that's not why the current benefits of marriage exist, then why do we have them in the first place? Certainly, that's the only reason why I, as a single person, am ok with footing the bill for those benefits. If that means that other people's children will be less likely to be a burden on me in other ways, I'm willing to pay that extra cost now. That's just not true with gay marriage.



Er...? Again. I'm not subsidizing marriage just because I think it's great for two people to find someone they love and want to spend the rest of their life with. That's great and all, but I shouldn't have to pay for their happiness. I subsidize marriage exactly and *only* because children produced by couples who marry are vastly less likely to end up being criminals, drug addicts, long term welfare drains, etc. The cost to me for providing those benefits to all heterosexual couples who marry is worth it if it encourages even a small percentage more of them to get married before popping out some babies. It's *not* worth it to me to do this for gay couples, since the percentage of gay couples who can produce a child together is 0. They can produce a child, but not with each other, which means you're asking me to subsidize someone getting impregnated by one person while gaining the benefits of spending their (her) life with someone else.


Now, if you can show me that even a tiny fraction of heterosexual marriages involve a planned intent of the woman to be impregnated by one guy but she marries a different one, then there might be some kind of correlation. But I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen too often (if ever). Meanwhile every single child produced by a married lesbian is produced in this manner. I'm sorry. I'm not ok with subsidizing that. If she wants me to pay for her benefits, then she can marry the guy she's getting impregnated by. Heck. I don't even care if it's just a show marriage and she keeps her real partner as a kept woman or something. I'm not a prude here. But I want the legal structure to include the father and mother of a child as often as possible...


And yes. I'm well aware that not every case falls into this. Certainly, there's divorce and remarriage. There are adoptions. Single parents as a result of the death of a spouse. But none of those are the "ideal" to which I believe we should be encouraging. And certainly, none of those people set out to do those things from the start. We encourage the entry into a state that will be most likely to produce positive results. We shouldn't just toss the whole thing out because it doesn't always work...



Oh. And for the record? It's kinda silly to argue that we shouldn't oppose state marriage law changes on the tax impact by pointing to the DOMA, given that it's also under attack by the same side of this issue. It stands to reason that if you support changing the legal status requirements in your state (or any state) to include same sex couples, you also support repealing DOMA. It's a non-argument...

Inertia.

You've got it backwards. I'm willing to pay that money to avoid a negative, not create a positive (although the effect is relatively positive of course).

The more relevant point is that you wont be having children without the socio-economic support of a marriage, will you? So you being an "exception" doesn't cause any problems, does it? Also, barring some medical condition, are you certain you aren't going to have any children? More relevantly, I certainly can't know that, so it makes sense to get you hitched now and then I don't have to, right?

It's a statistical thing. More heterosexual couples married, means a larger percentage of the children born to married couples. Of course there are exceptions. We're not going for perfection here. Just "better" (or maybe "less bad").

Do you agree that it's better for a couple to be married if/when the woman gets pregnant than not?

I think it's a reasonable assumption, though.



Yes. And we call that "marriage". My example assumed that they *don't* do this. No marriage in this context means that the male and the female do not share their lives, expenses, etc. So there's no "pairing up and raising children" going on.



Yes. But not in our culture, so that's kinda meaningless.



Sure it does. Because that's what happens in our culture when the men who impregnate the women do not pair up with them socially and economically to help raise the children. What did you think I meant by "0% of heterosexual couples marry"?



Of course they are. In the sense that they are not needed if the couple is and stays married. Your argument essentially devolves into: "There's no need to encourage people to marry because we have some rules to handle what happens if they don't". Um... Are you arguing that a society full of parents raising their children while receiving child support from the other parent is as "good" as one in which all the parents are married?

Again. Those are the ends of the spectrum. I'm not assuming 100% perfection here. Just establishing that the higher the percentage of heterosexual couples who marry, the better off we are as a whole. Everything else staying the same, this is absolutely true. Divorce is less than ideal, but if we don't have marriage in the first place, things are even worse, right? This somewhat assumes that getting married is the "best" case, right?



Eligible is not the same as receiving. And it's never going to be as good as the two parents being married either (are you going to refute the statistics on children of married couples, versus children of divorced couples, versus children of parents who never married?).

Not to mention, the whole "Who's child is this anyway" problem. One of the values of marriage is that the husband is legally assumed to be the father of any children born by the wife. We don't have any replacement mechanism outside of marriage other than lawsuits and paternity tests.

I'm not arguing "perfection". Just stating that one case is "better" than the other, and saying that it's worth subsidizing an incentive to increase the rate at which "better" happens.



Ok. Then why do we provide the benefits at all? You are free to dismiss these things, but clearly we do, and have for some time considered marriage (between a man and woman) to be important enough to provide all of these benefits. What other reason would there be? While I think we all like to see people be happy and find their soulmates and what not, I don't think that sufficient reason to justify all the benefits we provide right now.




It's not just the tax benefits Joph. I listed a lot more strictly financial benefits. Um... And every little bit helps, doesn't it? You're playing the "all or nothing" game again. Either every single person chooses to get married solely because of the financial incentives, or they don't really do anything. That's just not true. There is some statistical number of people who will get married prior to producing a family, and some number who wont. The incentives will not be the sole and most important factor, but it will tend to push the statistics in the direction of the former. That's the point.


Certainly, in a world where we've removed most of the social factors that traditionally nudged young men and women into marriage, is it so ridiculous to think that maybe leaving the financial incentives around is such a bad idea? Again, if they don't serve this purpose, then why have them? They exist under the assumption that they do produce enough of an incentive and benefit to married couples with children to be worth doing.

If you want to argue that we should just eliminate all economic benefits of marriage, by all means, make that argument. But I'm talking about why *I* oppose changing the laws to allow gay couples to qualify for the legal status of married. And my position is internally consistent.



Again with the "all or nothing" argument. Not "all". Some. Some may just not chose to marry in the first place. That's the point. You talk about "mated pairs", but that's not what's happening. Young adults aren't forming into mating pairs in the first place. They are just mating. And we're wondering why the rate of children born to single mothers just topped 40%...




Key phrase "vast majority". So a minority wouldn't? That's something, right? How much is that worth to us?

And the issue is not about currently married people. It's about future married people. It's about trying to get young adults to think of marriage as something they should seek out and desire rather than something that ties them down. People who are already married wouldn't magically divorce if the benefits of marriage were eliminated, but I suspect a whole lot of people in the next generation who might have gotten married will not do so if those benefits are gone.


And we will suffer for that as a society.


I still don't see how this line of reasoning qualifies for an argument *for* gay marriage. It's an argument to eliminate marriage as a legally recognized status entirely. I think it's a weak argument for it, but that's what you're really doing. Nowhere in there did you say why it's important to provide these things to gay couples.

You're basically arguing that since the existing benefits really aren't worth the expense, that there's no reason not to extend them to a broader group. And I happen to think that's a pretty dumb argument. I know you're a liberal and all that, but even you have to realize that this is kind of a dumb reason to spend money...

Are they? I don't agree with this at all. To me, it's about what the benefit is to the rest of society for someone forming that relationship, not the mere existence of it at all.

If that were true, why limit it at all? Why not allow anyone to define one person as the recipient of their pension if they should die? Or their social security? Let me put X number of my friends on my medical insurance?

Why limit it to "married couples"? What is is specifically about the state of being married that warrants these benefits, but not just being a good friend?



Funny. You use the term "households". A household typically assumes dependents to care for. I just find is amusing that even while insisting that the support and care for children has anything to do with this issue, so many of you can't help but use terms and concepts that are directly tied to the concept of supporting children. It's funny...



Really? Even those things I listed? Every single benefit provided to married couples that cost the rest of us money (health insurance inclusion, social security benefits, pensions, military survivors benefits, etc) you'd be ok with giving to anyone who is in a relationship with someone else? Really? Cause I don't think you really believe that either...




No they aren't. Without dependents (or their potential) to consider there is no way to distinguish any types of relationships, are there? What criteria do we use to determine who should get these benefits? If I live with a roommate, does that person qualify? Afterall, we're sharing some expenses, right?

When you remove the potential that a given relationship may produce children who will need to be cared for, there's no reason to do any of this at all. None.



Sadly a lot of stupid things happen "regardless". Hopefully, at some point people will wake up and realize just how stupid this whole thing is. It's not about discrimination "against" a group. It's about targeting benefits where they are needed and where they'll do the most good. Cause guess what? I'm *not* ok with just providing any sort of relationships with those benefits. And why should I? Why should anyone?


If everyone qualifies for it, it becomes really silly, doesn't it? If you can't explain why a gay couples should receive this, but not me and any random friend I have who could use the benefits, then your position is kinda in trouble, right?

Yeah, we're aware.
Whatever you say. I would say a household is two or more people that have an interdependent relationship. How you think the word should be properly used doesn't really matter though.

Absolutely. because I think it's worthwhile. Before you respond, I know you don't agree. /shrug I did say that if a lot of it went away for everyone I wouldn't care too much, however I don't think there is a good enough reason to not let same sex relationships access it. Your points aren't completely invalid or anything, it's just that they're really not strong enough to overpower the positives. Yes, I know you don't think there are any.


Sure, if you're willing to enter into a relationship that binds you together with certain responsibilities as well as rights. Seems like it wouldn't be worth it for pretty much any non permanent relationship. But this is a slippery slope argument anyway, and honestly I think it's pretty easy to draw the line at relationships that are intended to be permanent. (which is of course highly amusing in todays world of divorce, but that's not really part of this)

Hey, maybe you don't realize but you can already do this. To be fair not with a guy, but you don't even have to get married, just live together for a while, and then claim it. Common law! (maybe not in the states? not sure) I believe I've covered this, but it's the long term committed relationship that this covers.