From the point of view of the SOCIETY, marriage is about people production.
No it's not... 0.o
Inheritance rights have nothing to do with people production, visitation rights have nothing to do with people production and tax breaks have nothing to do with people production. People just say that society views marriage as people production to cover up their own heterosexist prejudices.
Inheritance rights have nothing to do with people production, visitation rights have nothing to do with people production and tax breaks have nothing to do with people production. People just say that society views marriage as people production to cover up their own heterosexist prejudices.
Society has no use for marriage aside from people-production, and certainly no need to give tax-breaks for an association that doesn't give anything back.
You are correct in that inheritance rights and visitation rights have nothing or at least little to do with peopleproduction, which is why I said so in an earlier answer.
Society has no use for marriage aside from people-production, and certainly no need to give tax-breaks for an association that doesn't give anything back.
You are correct in that inheritance rights and visitation rights have nothing or at least little to do with peopleproduction, which is why I said so in an earlier answer.
...So why can't we get married for visitation rights and inheritance rights?
Society has no use for marriage aside from people-production, and certainly no need to give tax-breaks for an association that doesn't give anything back.
You are correct in that inheritance rights and visitation rights have nothing or at least little to do with peopleproduction, which is why I said so in an earlier answer.
You've taken the song, "What does Love have to do with it ", to new and unsettling levels.
__________________ The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom. ~Isaac Asimov
Quoting my original opinion: 'I disagree with homosexual couples getting economic benefits from marriage.'
That doesn't make sense. I can understand you thinking marriages which 'produce people' should get economic benefits, but then if a homosexual couple adopts a near infant from somewhere else, they have in essence produced a person for America, while at the same time if a man/woman get married, but decide not to have kids, they have not produced a person for America. Also, what happens which said people who are produced are negatives (criminals, thieves, drug addicts, drains on welfare system), should the union which produced them get economic benefits? Would it not be best to say that any group (and no need to limit it to marriage, why not single or polygamous) which 'produces' contributing members of society get economic benefits?
__________________
.
..:
If history is to change, let it change. If the world is to be destroyed, so be it. If my fate is to die, I must simply laugh.
The past is dead. It was all just a dream...
- Magus
To help protect the sanctity of marriage, please keep all affairs heterosexual.
If no image appears, something has gone wrong. I don't know. Probably run out of squirrels.
I disagree with homosexuals couples getting economic benefits from marriage. The societal purpose of those benefits is to encourage production of future generations, of which homosexual couples, as a unit, are incapable.
Actually, this is easily proven false. Rather, pretty much any law involving economic benefits for children have no ties to marriage whatsoever. All the child benefits (and actually it could be argued more) are available to a single woman as to a married couple. A child born to a married woman is not automatically assigned to her husband but rather the father is recognized by the birth certificate. Marriage laws are all designed around the husband and wife. And children in divorce are only taken into account only if both husband and wife are the child's parent.
__________________ The people I respect most behave as if they were immortal and as if society was eternal. ~ E. M. Forster
From the point of view of the SOCIETY, marriage is about people production.
By "people production," you mean "having children," correct? If so, then what about infertile couples, elderly couples, and couples that want to remain child-free? Are you saying that those couples should be denied marriage rights, too?
__________________
H a n n a h
I am a deeply complex, often-confusing, empathetic,
open-minded, neurotic, introverted poet majoring in
English, and I often wish I were someone else completely.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
What I've learned about myself since I came back to CF:
I know basically nothing about the Bible, I'm horrible at debating,
I'm dumb as a rock, I'm way too sensitive for my own good,
I'm doing a bad thing by taking anti-anxiety meds,
I almost always take threads off-topic,
and I tend to turn everything into an argument.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Unless he means for 'having children' to include those who adopt. The no problem for homosexual men. Also, homosexual women can have children anyways.
__________________
.
..:
If history is to change, let it change. If the world is to be destroyed, so be it. If my fate is to die, I must simply laugh.
The past is dead. It was all just a dream...
- Magus
To help protect the sanctity of marriage, please keep all affairs heterosexual.
If no image appears, something has gone wrong. I don't know. Probably run out of squirrels.
That doesn't make sense. I can understand you thinking marriages which 'produce people' should get economic benefits, but then if a homosexual couple adopts a near infant from somewhere else, they have in essence produced a person for America, while at the same time if a man/woman get married, but decide not to have kids, they have not produced a person for America. Also, what happens which said people who are produced are negatives (criminals, thieves, drug addicts, drains on welfare system), should the union which produced them get economic benefits? Would it not be best to say that any group (and no need to limit it to marriage, why not single or polygamous) which 'produces' contributing members of society get economic benefits?
Again, if you ADOPT a child, you do not PRODUCE a child. You WILL receive a child welfare check, which is incentive to raise the child efficiently.
For the society, a marriage is a contract that's intended to insure stable people-producing environment.
Linear Mode
