Eske Esquire wrote:
I've had better sense than to follow this thread thusfar. Gbaji, is your argument that marriage benefits should be exclusively reserved for heterosexual couples because it encourages a healthy environment for child-rearing?
Not exactly. The benefits exist as an incentive to get couples who might otherwise create offspring outside of a socio-economic structure best suited for child-rearing (ie: marriage) to do so within said structure. The benefits are not designed just to make child rearing easier.
Quote:
If that's the case, follow up question: wouldn't those same benefits encourage a healthy environment for child-rearing by homosexual couples? I mean, I get that you probably don't think that a homosexual couple is as healthy an environment as a heterosexual couple for raising kids.
That would be a false assumption. Don't assume that I hold my position for the exactly opposite reason you hold yours. It's a common failing.
Quote:
But assuming that gays can adopt, then wouldn't a married gay couple be a healthier environment than an unmarried one? Or a single adoptive parent?
Adoption is a choice. Making that choice, one should be prepared and able to take care of the children you adopt. This is not to say that I don't support gay couples entering into a civil and legally binding marriage as a means to creating a better environment for raising children if they choose to adopt them, but that has nothing to do with the government creating benefits for the couple.
We're trying to correct for the problem of men and women having sex together and producing children without the two of them as a couple being bound together in some way. If gay couples want to choose to do this that's wonderful for them. But it'll never happen accidentally, or as a natural consequence of their sexual activity. It will statistically happen (at a great rate) among heterosexual couples, so there's a need and value for the government to step in and create some sort of incentive/reward for them if they marry. Preferably, said benefits should apply *before* they have children, else it does not act as an incentive.
Quote:
So marriage benefits would thereby encourage a healthier environment for homosexual couples adopting children (even if you don't think it's the best possible option)?
"Marriage" does. And no one's stopping gay couples from entering into a legally binding civil/social marriage contract. In fact, the Domestic Partnership law in California honestly goes several steps farther than I think is necessary for gay couples either. Again, they have the luxury of choice. No gay couple will accidentally find themselves pregnant, will they?
Quote:
Preemptive apologies if I'm completely off-base here. I can't be ***** to do more than skim the thread.
No biggie. The annoying thing for me is that this is the zillionth time someone has asked the exact same questions you just did. And I give the exact same answers every single time. Then the thread spins off on some tangents about how I can't be right because someone doesn't understand what I'm saying. Then I spend several pages clarifying exactly what I just said above. Then someone insists that marriage isn't about incentive. Then I spend several more pages explaining what I just explained to Joph about the difference between why someone wants something versus why someone else gives it to them. And then someone will inevitably ask the same questions you just asked and I'll be forced to explain the whole thing again. Then about 10 pages later, without ever having really provided a valid refutation of what I'm arguing, I'll get called a bigot and a homophobe, someone will insist that I'm a closet homosexual in denial, and the whole thing will devolve from there.
That's how these threads usually go. We have one about every six months or so. Good times!