Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

When you come right down to it, traditional polygamy (one man with multiple wives) meets all the same criteria which we currently use to determine what sorts of marriages we encourage. There is a clear determination of the biological parents of a given child and sufficient economic support for any children produced. One can even argue that the addition of a third person (or more) means that a family could more easily provide superior child rearing while still allowing for more than one income, something which is precarious at best in two parent homes.

Much of the same financial benefits exist group marriages with multiple males. The only negative is the inability to determine automatically which two are the biological parents of any given child. This can make potential break ups very very problematic.

But yeah, I happen to think there is far far more validity to arguing for inclusion of polygamy in our marriage statues than for same sex couples. To me, there is no reason to include same sex couples, since they can't ever be joint biological parents to a child. Obviously, that doesn't mean that they can't enter into a legally defined relationship (a "marriage" if you will), but only that there's no vested interest in the rest of us spending money to encourage them to do so.


The primary concern is about maximizing the number of positive environments in which children are born, with an eye toward the idea of keeping biological parents in direct guardianship of their children. For me, that's why we have marriage benefits. Once you take that assumption away, there's really no point to them. It's just a benefit for people who could benefit from having a benefit. Well duh! Everyone can benefit from having a benefit. It's meaningless.

Just wanted to be the first to point this out and snicker about it.

The simplest way to handle that requires mandatory filing of every person's DNA for the purpose of determining parentage. Whether or not you (in the generic here) like that idea is another matter entirely.

(Points in its favor: It makes the whole "we can't find anyone who matches this DNA sample" in various criminal trials impossible; it makes it possible for a far more secure identity system than we currently have; and others which are less relevant to anything discussed here. Points against: Potential privacy issues.)

Yeah. That's kinda why it's problematic.



You think?

I mean, I could, but I could also write out the next twenty pages of this thread and pinpoint the exact moment you return to your arguments on the first page because you've ran out of room to defend everything else.

Summary of your POV gay marriage threads:

1) You live in a world of denial about society re: gay people and how they act and are treated.
2) You think "close enough! it doesn't directly hurt you anyway." is ok.
3) You're an idiot.

I could say "Dearest gbaji, please come up with one logical statement, which you will defend for the next twenty pages without changing the topic, which states why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed." What you'll do is blather on and on about how it can't be one statement. I'll say choose the strongest then. You'll say it's too complicated. I say we're not here to solve every problem. You'll state five different things at once. Various people will point out how completely deluded you are about life in general. You'll switch to a different statement, and we'll be right back here.

No, thanks. I already know you can't do it, so I have nothing to prove. It's just entertaining to watch you pout about it.

Now there's another 69 posts. It's kind of nice being so far behind that I have no desire to read up and join in. Besides, I already know from the last fifteen threads on the topic that Gbaji is wrong and is using some of the most retarded logical contortions possible to try and defend the homophobia of his party :)

Semantics. See? I can do that too.

Everyone who is saying that you think gay marriage shouldn't be allowed is referring to the benefits given by marriage, as well as the traditional "concept" of marriage as a ceremony for the married couple. But let's keep it simple and just think of it as the benefits.

So, to recap:

'Allow marriage' is synonymous with 'allow marriage benefits'.

"But they really aren't synonymous!"

I don't care. You're purposefully stupid if you don't realize that's what everyone is talking about, but then again, we already know that.

"Blah blah blah tax benefits blah blah destroy the economy."

That's a shitty argument, primarily because it has no merit and you never give it any. Just admit that you don't want to allow marriage (OH SHI- DID YOU GET WHAT I MEANT THERE?) because the bible says gays are bad so we can stop this failtrain.



Edited, Aug 5th 2010 7:48pm by bsphil

No. Did you even read what I said?

1. Because married couples fought for them.

2. I can't think of a reason to exclude them.

Edited, Aug 5th 2010 8:06pm by bsphil

Yes. You insisted that everyone really is talking just about the state granted benefits when they speak about "allowing marriage". I'm skeptical of that is all and am asking you to back it up. I thought I was pretty clear actually.



I suppose so, but that's the method used to obtain the benefits (and I'm not sure that's true either), not why the state created them in the first place. Perhaps I was unclear with my question, but your answer is like arguing that we passed the civil rights act because black people fought for them. While technically correct, it's not really much of an answer, is it?



Can you think of a reason to exclude siblings from being allowed to marry?


Let me add something: I asked you why the reasons for the benefits doesn't preclude them being provided to gay couples. Saying, I can't think of a reason, isn't sufficient. In case you didn't get the point of the exercise, I'm asking you to provide an argument *for* providing those benefits to gay couples. What about the purpose of the benefits makes it such that we should provide them to gay couples?



Edited, Aug 5th 2010 6:16pm by gbaji

Not really. But I'm not talking about that, so why are you asking?

Don't care. That does nothing to discuss the original issue.

How about because the line "all men are created equal" clashed with laws discriminating against people based on their skin color? Men fought for civil rights because they wanted it. Black men fought for civil rights because being denied it goes against our nation's foundation.

Edited, Aug 5th 2010 8:19pm by bsphil

No... or yes?

Think about it.

1. Why does that matter? Because I already know you're trying to ask leading questions to get into writing a few pages of responses about marriage being solely for the purpose of encouraging raising children in a "committed" relationship between a man and a woman, so don't bother explaining it again. My point to that would be, why are you excluding people who can adopt children? Why not support raising children in a "committed" relationship between two men or two women? Yeah, if they existed in a bubble they couldn't produce their own children to raise. Fortunately for them, that's not how the world works.

Stop trying to rehash the same stupid arguments. I've read them over and over from several threads now. It's not that I'm just not "getting it", they're just shitty arguments with a block of text as a foundation instead of, say, logic.

2. Yes, if you believe that all men are created equal.