| Archived - Ethics & Morality Archived threads from Ethics & Morality |
15th July 2008, 08:36 AM
| | Junior Member
  
| | Join Date: 14th July 2008
Posts: 27
Blessings: 83,608 My Mood 
Reps: 8,096 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by Madcoil  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. |
15th July 2008, 08:47 AM
| | Senior Member
27    
 | | Join Date: 29th October 2004
Posts: 605
Blessings: 89,377
Reps: 24,356 (power: 32) | | Originally Posted by God-fearing Queer 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.
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're going to use a SPELL CARD?! <--- |
15th July 2008, 08:54 AM
| | Junior Member
| | Join Date: 14th July 2008
Posts: 27
Blessings: 83,608 My Mood
Reps: 8,096 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by Madcoil 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? |
15th July 2008, 08:58 AM
| | Senior Member
27
| | Join Date: 29th October 2004
Posts: 605
Blessings: 89,377
Reps: 24,356 (power: 32) | | Originally Posted by God-fearing Queer ...So why can't we get married for visitation rights and inheritance rights?
Quoting my original opinion: 'I disagree with homosexual couples getting economic benefits from marriage.'
__________________ ---> You're going to use a SPELL CARD?! <---
Last edited by Madcoil; 15th July 2008 at 08:58 AM.
Reason: hmm, typo in my quote
|
15th July 2008, 08:58 AM
|  | Draenei Priestess
  
| | Join Date: 4th February 2008 Location: Telaar, Nagrand
Posts: 422
Blessings: 89,267
Reps: 509,556 (power: 514) | | Originally Posted by Madcoil 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 |
15th July 2008, 09:45 AM
|  | My solace my terror, my terror my solace.
22  
| | Join Date: 20th April 2005
Posts: 11,605
Blessings: 36,888 My Mood 
Reps: 27,354,533,772,047,632 (power: 27,354,533,772,065) | | Originally Posted by Madcoil 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?
__________________ Jeremiah 1:5
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you"
That is BEFORE, not WHEN.
Life starts before conception. Supporting a woman's right to choose to not fertilize an egg, giving her the ability to choose to let a life die, is pro-choice, not pro-life.
|
15th July 2008, 10:08 AM
| | Veteran
 
| | Join Date: 20th October 2007
Posts: 5,315
Blessings: 11,280
Reps: 12,773,578,371,522,452 (power: 12,773,578,371,532) | | Originally Posted by Madcoil 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.
__________________
You know everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects. -- Will Rogers
The more you read and observe about this Politics thing, you got to admit that each party is worse than the other. The one that's out always looks the best. -- Will Rogers |
15th July 2008, 10:26 AM
| | Legend
24  
| | Join Date: 11th December 2006 Location: Concord, MA
Posts: 10,224
Blessings: 2,102,120 My Mood 
Reps: 149,157,868,790,683 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by Madcoil 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? |
15th July 2008, 10:28 AM
| | My solace my terror, my terror my solace.
22
| | Join Date: 20th April 2005
Posts: 11,605
Blessings: 36,888 My Mood
Reps: 27,354,533,772,047,632 (power: 27,354,533,772,065) | | | Unless he means for 'having children' to include those who adopt. The no problem for homosexual men. Also, homosexual women can have children anyways.
__________________ Jeremiah 1:5
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you"
That is BEFORE, not WHEN.
Life starts before conception. Supporting a woman's right to choose to not fertilize an egg, giving her the ability to choose to let a life die, is pro-choice, not pro-life.
|
16th July 2008, 01:43 AM
| | Senior Member
27
| | Join Date: 29th October 2004
Posts: 605
Blessings: 89,377
Reps: 24,356 (power: 32) | | Originally Posted by lawtonfogle 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.
__________________ ---> You're going to use a SPELL CARD?! <--- |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
