Jophiel wrote:
Gbaji's retort consisted of stating that:
(A) Some of those benefits made it easier to raise children, therefore we must assume that they exist for the primary purpose of being an incentive to get married prior to having children -- regardless of a lack of direct evidence supporting this. The evidence of conjecture suffices.
(A) Some of those benefits made it easier to raise children, therefore we must assume that they exist for the primary purpose of being an incentive to get married prior to having children -- regardless of a lack of direct evidence supporting this. The evidence of conjecture suffices.
Yes. As in "There's no reason to grant these benefits to anyone other than based on an assumption of child production". My problem with your "responses" is that you basically just repeat cases I've already discussed over and over. When I spend a half dozen posts explaining in detail how a set of benefits only make sense if used as an incentive/benefit for couples who might produce children to get married first, and then ask people for alternative explanations, it's more than a little bit annoying when you just ignore all that I wrote and repeat broad arguments like "well, some of those things will benefit people who wont have children". Um... For the umpteenth time, all benefits will benefit anyone who receives them. My question was why the state would gain by providing them, and what reason it has for doing so.
Simply repeating points I've already answered without adding anything new isn't a response. It's just mindless repetition.
Quote:
(B) The Fifth Amendment's original catalyst is insignificant. Curiously, since I don't think that Gbaji is saying that the Fifth Amendment itself is unimportant, Gbaji seems to be stating we don't need to hold to the historical purposes of a marital benefit if they are currently obsolete.
I have repeatedly stated that this is the one sole "right" granted by marriage, and is the one legitimate argument for the gay marriage case. I have commented that the impact of this is pretty small (how often does this really come up?), *and* have observed that it's interesting that while this is the one actual right in question, I have never in my life heard a gay marriage advocate actually argue the case for gay marriage for this reason.
Heck. I'm usually the first one in a thread to mention it. Cause I try to be fair and honest with my arguments...
I'll also point out that in my post above (and in a couple of earlier threads), I proposed an alternative in which the legal status is granted but just a small set of financial benefits is restricted to just married couples consisting of one man and one women. You'll note that the Fifth Amendment is not on that list. I'm perfectly ok with extending this to gay spouses. Never have argued anything else. So how about not making it seem like I've argued otherwise? It's dishonest of you. Grossly dishonest.
Quote:
(C) Many of these benefits can be gained via other routes. This is irrelevent to determining why those reasons exist but it was his reply to the second half of the portion I quoted.
It's not irrelevant Joph. Not even a little bit. If the argument is that gay couples are being "denied" access to a specific set of things, then it's very very relevant to point out that they can already obtain them without needing to change a single thing about marriage.
If you are arguing that by not changing the requirements for marriage in the state of California to include gay couples, you are denying them the ability to visit their spouse in the hospital, or make medical decisions about them, you are outright lying. And yeah. That's pretty darn significant to point out. Most of the gay marriage argument is based on just plain false statements.
No gay couple is denied visitation of their spouse. They just have to obtain the proper power of attorney. Just as straight couples do. The fact that straight couples can do this via the process of marriage does not change the fact that it is no more or less available to any other two people. You do not need to be married to gain that power, thus you are not denied it if you aren't able to marry. I'm not sure how I can be any more clear than this.
This is just another example of you repeating claims I've already clearly debunked without actually addressing the points I made at all. That's what's so annoying when you keep doing this. Just saying "your wrong" doesn't make it so. You could at least acknowledge that I have already spent quite a bit of time discussing the very aspect of this issue you've just blindly ignored. Just a thought.
Quote:
Gbaji seems intent on demanding that we agree that every benefit evolved from the prime motive of getting people to wed before having children.
And yet, you *still* have not produced an alternative explanation. Remember. I'm not asking you why the recipient might benefit from those things. I'm asking you why the state and/or society as a whole benefits from granting them. You keep twisting this backwards (and not just you). Your whole "women running around with shopping carts" counter is a good example of this. Sure. She's better off. But so would anyone else who we choose to help out as well. You don't address the reason why we'd do this specifically for "marriage", but not anything/anyone else.
My argument is that if a married couple has children, one spouse typically stays at home and cares for the children. Thus, that spouse's career is put on hold. The whole issue with allowing both to draw on eachothers pensions, social security, etc is to account for this fact. Take away the assumption of children, and there is no more reason to assume that a spouse would be less able to care for him/herself in their old age than any other single person, right?
That was my argument. Your counter doesn't address it at all. Hence why I keep saying you aren't providing an alternative explanation. If there is no assumption of child production and care involved in marriage, then why do we do those things? "It help them out" isn't a good answer Joph...
