It's that time again: how does gay marriage harm?

BananaSlug · Apr 10, 2006

Because the marriage of two people of the same sex is so much more important.

beechy · Apr 10, 2006

susanann said:
I realize that actual true gay marraiges would only be a very small bump. A very small %.

If you also noted, I never attacked anyone being gay, or stated whether it is right or wrong. That is irrelevent.

What legalized gay marraige would mostly do, would be to open up a massive loophole that even "non-gay" people would utilize to take benefits that they dont deserve.

Outlawing drugs seemed like a good idea at the time, but after 90 years, we have increased drug usage, drug pushers, hundreds of billions of wasted dollars, and lots lots more crime. We have also seen how giving a green card to immigrant marraiges has led to "fake" marraiges motivated only by a desire to cheat and milk our systems.

So it is with gay marraige. It will cost hundreds of billions of dollars with non-gays using that loophole to grab benefits, and it will prevent criminal prosecutions.

It is also unfair to other groups of people and partnerships, such as best buddies, best friends, hetero-roomies, sisters and brothers, all types of extended families, elderly people who live together from getting the same types of tax benefits and government handouts that a legal gay marraige would provide.

Full disclosure of all the consequences must be shown in a clear manner, with full and total costs. All of the potential abuses must also be revealed and costs listed.

If you want to change something, then you have to be forthright and show exactly how everything might change, list all of the potential abuses that might come about, and show how much it will cost in total.

Although claim you only want fairness, you only want it for yourself - and not for all other partners who will not get any benefits. Other people who are partners in life, siblings, elderly people, roomies, etc. apparently are of no concern to you. My guess is, that most people of same sex who live together today, are not in any gay relationship and they would still be deprived of the same government handouts and escape from taxes that you want only for gay people.

Therefore, regardless of right or wrong, or any morality issues, what you are proposing is a new type of system that is full of potential abuses, will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and leaves all the injustices for most of our country's unmarried partners.

YOu are asking for voters to give money and priveliges to gay couples that we currently choose not to give to legal extended families.

The likelihood of ever getting a majority of voters to approve such a hypcritical proposal is zilch.

What do you think civil marriage is all about? How do you define it? Do you believe that straight married partners should benefit from marriage laws? Why?

susanann · Apr 10, 2006

Quote Originally Posted by: susanann

What are you going to do about all the widows in Florida who suddenly realize that if they enter into a:

"marraige of convenience"

with another widow, that they will easily and legally be able to double their social security check?

beechy said:
Opposite sex widows can do this under the current law.

So what you are proposing, is a way to increase fraud????

Widows in Florida outnumber widowers by 20:1, so it would actually increase fraud by 20X.

But it would more than increase fraud by just a little bit, because everyone could see thru it and realize that "marraige" will no longer be a holy joining of man and woman, but rather, marraige, will become: a trick, a tool, a loophole, to be used to get benefits and tax breaks that they dont deserve.

College age kids will use it to get cheap resident tuition.

All "roomies" will use it for tax breaks and health benefits.

susanann · Apr 10, 2006

susanann said:
Therefore, regardless of right or wrong, or any morality issues, what you are proposing is a new type of system that is full of potential abuses, will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and leaves all the injustices for most of our country's unmarried partners.

YOu are asking for voters to give money and priveliges to gay couples that we currently choose not to give to legal extended families.

The likelihood of ever getting a majority of voters to approve such a hypcritical proposal is zilch.

Oh yeah, and whenever you want to open up a can of worms, and change basic rules of society that have been in place for centuries, then you must list all of the benefits that will make it worthwhile.

So far, no benefits at all have been listed.

Why take all that risk, assume all the extra hundreds of billions of dollars of cost, for "what" in return?

comana · Apr 10, 2006

susanann said:
Quote Originally Posted by: susanann

What are you going to do about all the widows in Florida who suddenly realize that if they enter into a:

"marraige of convenience"

with another widow, that they will easily and legally be able to double their social security check?

So what you are proposing, is a way to increase fraud????

Widows in Florida outnumber widowers by 20:1, so it would actually increase fraud by 20X.

But it would more than increase fraud by just a little bit, because everyone could see thru it and realize that "marraige" will no longer be a holy joining of man and woman, but rather, marraige, will become: a trick, a tool, a loophole, to be used to get benefits and tax breaks that they dont deserve.

College age kids will use it to get cheap resident tuition.

All "roomies" will use it for tax breaks and health benefits.

Since these loopholes are already available for abuse perhaps you would like to provide the statistics of how prevelent such abuses already are.

beechy · Apr 10, 2006

susanann said:
Quote Originally Posted by: susanann

What are you going to do about all the widows in Florida who suddenly realize that if they enter into a:

"marraige of convenience"

with another widow, that they will easily and legally be able to double their social security check?

So what you are proposing, is a way to increase fraud????

Widows in Florida outnumber widowers by 20:1, so it would actually increase fraud by 20X.

So all widows are going to enter into "fake" marriages? What makes you think this???? Why aren't they doing it now? Because they only want to enter into fake marriages with their female friends, not their male friends?

susanann said:
But it would more than increase fraud by just a little bit, because everyone could see thru it and realize that "marraige" will no longer be a holy joining of man and woman, but rather, marraige, will become: a trick, a tool, a loophole, to be used to get benefits and tax breaks that they dont deserve.

College age kids will use it to get cheap resident tuition.

All "roomies" will use it for tax breaks and health benefits.

Marriage has never been about a "holy joining" to atheists, but that doesn't mean it isn't personally meaningful to people who don't view it in the same religious light as you do. Did you even read the Massachusetts Supreme Court excerpt I posted above? Do you not agree that that's what civil marriage is about? I don't want to marry my partner to set up a fake marriage. I love her and we're going to build a life together. There is absolutely no evidence to show that allowing me to do that is going to spur thousands of Florida widows who wouldn't otherwise have thought to do so into to getting fake married at the expense of American taxpayers.

And once again -- fake marriage is currently available to everyone, even gay people, who can fake marry their opposite sex friends all day long. But it's not fake marriage we're after, because my life and my love is real.

beechy · Apr 10, 2006

susanann said:
Oh yeah, and whenever you want to open up a can of worms, and change basic rules of society that have been in place for centuries, then you must list all of the benefits that will make it worthwhile.

So far, no benefits at all have been listed.

Why take all that risk, assume all the extra hundreds of billions of dollars of cost, for "what" in return?

For equal protection of the laws for myself and my family. My family might not seem worth it to you, but I think we are. And striking down an unconstitutional classification is of benefit to us all.

beechy · Apr 10, 2006

faster_jackrabbit said:
Sorry about that. It's one of the hazards when there ain't no icon. You might have said at some point, but I missed it.

No problem. I've always had the display gender box clicked in my profile options, but I don't see any place to specify my gender so nothing shows up (can anyone point me in the right direction?)

faster_jackrabbit · Apr 10, 2006

susanann said:
Quote Originally Posted by: susanann

What are you going to do about all the widows in Florida who suddenly realize that if they enter into a:

"marraige of convenience"

with another widow, that they will easily and legally be able to double their social security check?

So what you are proposing, is a way to increase fraud????

Widows in Florida outnumber widowers by 20:1, so it would actually increase fraud by 20X.

But it would more than increase fraud by just a little bit, because everyone could see thru it and realize that "marraige" will no longer be a holy joining of man and woman, but rather, marraige, will become: a trick, a tool, a loophole, to be used to get benefits and tax breaks that they dont deserve.

College age kids will use it to get cheap resident tuition.

All "roomies" will use it for tax breaks and health benefits.

Right, mixed sex college kids and roomies never thought of this.

Since fraud is of such concern to you, why aren't you working to abolish marriage entirely? Things like this are going on now. Why are you not already incensed about it and lobbying to get rid of marriage?

Not only could you prevent future cases of fraud, you could eliminate the fraud that is going on now.

beechy · Apr 10, 2006

faster_jackrabbit said:
Right, mixed sex college kids and roomies never thought of this.

Since fraud is of such concern to you, why aren't you working to abolish marriage entirely? Things like this are going on now. Why are you not already incensed about it and lobbying to get rid of marriage?

Not only could you prevent future cases of fraud, you could eliminate the fraud that is going on now.

Right.

And also, once you're married to someone you can't at the same time marry someone else. So fake marriage might sound like a good idea until you find someone you really love and you want to build your life around them instead of your fake spouse. Your new beau probably won't be happy that you have a pretend partner, and will insist that you get a divorce. Then the dreaded fake marriage goes away and the problem is solved. If the fake spouses don't ever find or want real partners, then I don't care one snit if they want to legally bind themselves to one another, entangle their finances, fill out joint tax returns, and to make end of life decisions on each others' behalf. It's none of my business if two people are content to be in a loveless marriage. Is that what you would want for yourself? If/when you are/were single, would you fake marry a male friend just so you could be added to his company's health insurance policy? Do you have a lot of single friends who have done so?

SimplyMe · Apr 10, 2006

Brennin said:
You claimed previously that the "holy" spirit convinced you your previous view of homosexuality was wrong.

Yet that had nothing to do with the comment I made, did it?

Brennin said:
Your exegesis is incorrect. I suggest that you take some formal classes in the NT and Ancient Greek as well as read articles and books by reputable scholars.

Of course, it's amazing how you categorize "reputable scholars" as those that agree with you. It's even stranger that some you have listed as reputable scholars seem to accept the reason and logic of scholars you do not find reputable, even while they disagree. It would appear you allow your prejudice cloud your scholarship.

As for this scripture, part of my point is that it isn't actually supported. If you go back to verse 21 it talks of them rejecting God and their "hearts being darkened". Verse 22 talks of how they were wise yet became fools, 23 continues explaining that they made idols, 24 then talks of their being given up "to the lusts of their hearts". 25 refers back to the idea that these are people who have lost God, and "served the creature more than the Creator", 26 and 27 finally get to the idea that they then turned to homosexuality though 27 ends with the thought, "receiving in themselves that recompense of their error". 28 even repeats this idea, "God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient". We then go to 29, " Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers". Funny, here it directly links unrighteousness with fornication, though I'm guessing you don't agree with the mainstream interpretation of "pomeia".

So, because they rejected God and turned to idols all of this happened. To claim that these people who turned from God and were given over to lusts (which appears from v. 29 to mean fornication, adultery, etc.) and then turned to homosexuality does not appear to be a condemnation of all homosexuality -- just as it also appears to only condemn "lustful" heterosexuality.

Brennin said:
I'll take a look.

Homoeroticism != homosexual orientation (not in my usage, at least).

For clarity you may wish to find another word as dictionaries define it differently:

Homoeroticism n : a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex [syn: homosexuality, homosexualism, gayness]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton

You also didn't answer the question.

Brennin · Apr 10, 2006

SimplyMe said:
Yet that had nothing to do with the comment I made, did it?

It goes to show the basis for your position is not factual.

Of course, it's amazing how you categorize "reputable scholars" as those that agree with you. It's even stranger that some you have listed as reputable scholars seem to accept the reason and logic of scholars you do not find reputable, even while they disagree. It would appear you allow your prejudice cloud your scholarship.

No, they do not. Moreover, I am not afraid to call a spade a spade.

As for this scripture, part of my point is that it isn't actually supported. If you go back to verse 21 it talks of them rejecting God and their "hearts being darkened". Verse 22 talks of how they were wise yet became fools, 23 continues explaining that they made idols, 24 then talks of their being given up "to the lusts of their hearts". 25 refers back to the idea that these are people who have lost God, and "served the creature more than the Creator", 26 and 27 finally get to the idea that they then turned to homosexuality though 27 ends with the thought, "receiving in themselves that recompense of their error". 28 even repeats this idea, "God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient". We then go to 29, " Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers". Funny, here it directly links unrighteousness with fornication, though I'm guessing you don't agree with the mainstream interpretation of "pomeia".

So, because they rejected God and turned to idols all of this happened. To claim that these people who turned from God and were given over to lusts (which appears from v. 29 to mean fornication, adultery, etc.) and then turned to homosexuality does not appear to be a condemnation of all homosexuality -- just as it also appears to only condemn "lustful" heterosexuality.

Like I said, your exegesis is simply wrong. I could recommend some relevant books if you would like.

For clarity you may wish to find another word as dictionaries define it differently:

Homoeroticism n : a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex [syn: homosexuality, homosexualism, gayness]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton

Note the parenthetical; I used homoeroticism in that sense.

Jedi · Apr 10, 2006

Outlaw said:
Poor understanding? Please explain why disagreeing with your personal interpretation of the bible constitutes an inability to understand.

Is your personal interpretation of the bible infallible?

How do you know that it is not you who has the poor understanding of scripture?

You’ve missed the point entirely, which has become to surprise me less and less. Never did I say that my words were holy writ, only that text misunderstood and/or abused in the past does not somehow, as if by magic, mean that there could never be any correct understanding of scripture applied to a situation to condemn immoral behavior.

Discrimination is always an act of hate, it is never an act of love.

You just make the same mistake again, replacing “hate” with “descrimination.” Tell me, do you approve of rapists? Do you approve of murderers? No? Good Lord, man, you’re discriminating against those who think these things are right! And what’s this? They get locked up in jail by acting on their beliefs! BIGOT! BIGOT! /roll eyes

Condemning immoral behavior is, in no way, a negative behavior itself.

None of which specifically prohibit same sex marriage.

They prohibit same-sex sex. Don’t tell me legalizing marriage won’t promote such behavior or that married couples get married with no interest of having sex.

Racists do not reason?

Racists do not have a university education?
Racists are not skilled in theology?
Racists do not have a good foundation in philosophy?

I’m pretty darn confident I can take on a racist any day on the intellectual battlefield.

Why is your justification for prejudice correct and the justification of racists wrong?

This is a loaded question, but nice try. I’m not trying to justify prejudice (as your prejudice against those who oppose homosexuality repeats over and over again). I am justifying the condemnation of immoral acts.

Yes they are legitimate because they exist. That is what personal views are…personal. Not better or worse.

Ugh, relativism. There are so many problems with this trash of a philosophy that it would require an entire topic all of its own.

So is that a “yes, you do agree that murdering your own child can be morally correct”?

That’s a “Read my response and what I wrote, explaining how you’ve set up a false dilemma” response.

Yet you have no problem potentially making the same “very serious errors” because of the distance culture and time has created between the text and us to prop up your own personal prejudice.

Again, you’re painting a straw man of the opposition, which speaks very poorly of you. It is my business to dive into the context and bring out the author’s intent. In the verses I’ve cited concerning homosexual activity being condemned, there simply is no convincing alternative explanation of the text that remains true to the context and culture of the passage.

You judge others based on an intrinsic factor rather than individual merit…what do you think that makes you?

Again, your prejudices against those who oppose homosexuality practically ooze from your posts. It is quite possible to condemn homosexual activity while not hating the person who does them.

Ironic that a person such as yourself who quickly accuses others of prejudice is, himself, guilty of that very thing.

susanann · Apr 10, 2006

Quote Originally Posted by: susanann

Oh yeah, and whenever you want to open up a can of worms, and change basic rules of society that have been in place for centuries, then you must list all of the benefits that will make it worthwhile.

So far, no benefits at all have been listed.

Why take all that risk, assume all the extra hundreds of billions of dollars of cost, for "what" in return?

beechy said:
For equal protection of the laws for myself and my family. My family might not seem worth it to you, but I think we are. And striking down an unconstitutional classification is of benefit to us all.

I am sure you would vote for it, but you arent giving any reason for anyone else to vote for it, and to take such risks and such great costs.

The ERA (Equal Rights for Women) was also a great idea. But after people found out about how much it would cost, and how many facets of society would change, it failed ratification - no matter how nice equal rights for women would have been.

The moreal is: you have to have a reason for most people to want it - and nobody is givning any.

beechy · Apr 10, 2006

susanann said:
I am sure you would vote for it, but you arent giving any reason for anyone else to vote for it, and to take such risks and such great costs.

The ERA (Equal Rights for Women) was also a great idea. But after people found out about how much it would cost, and how many facets of society would change, it failed ratification - no matter how nice equal rights for women would have been.

The moreal is: you have to have a reason for most people to want it - and nobody is givning any.

Votes are immaterial when it comes to questions of constitutionality. If the majority of Americans voted to institute slavery to boost our economy with free labor, the thirteenth amendment would trump it.

beechy · Apr 10, 2006

susanann said:
Quote Originally Posted by: susanann

Oh yeah, and whenever you want to open up a can of worms, and change basic rules of society that have been in place for centuries, then you must list all of the benefits that will make it worthwhile.

So far, no benefits at all have been listed.

Why take all that risk, assume all the extra hundreds of billions of dollars of cost, for "what" in return?

I am sure you would vote for it, but you arent giving any reason for anyone else to vote for it, and to take such risks and such great costs.

The ERA (Equal Rights for Women) was also a great idea. But after people found out about how much it would cost, and how many facets of society would change, it failed ratification - no matter how nice equal rights for women would have been.

The moreal is: you have to have a reason for most people to want it - and nobody is givning any.

Also, the only "risk" you've identified is the "risk" that people will suddenly be struck with an unprecedented desire to enter into "sham" marriages -- a vehicle which is currently available to anyone who wants it and can find a willing "fake" partner.

susanann · Apr 10, 2006

beechy said:
Votes are immaterial when it comes to questions of constitutionality. .

Votes are everything, and no one is presenting any case to have gay marraige.

carmi · Apr 10, 2006

*** Mod Hat On ***

I am sorry I have to interrupt but I do see that the thread goes further and further away from the question asked in the op

It's that time again: how does gay marriage harm?

I would like to ask all participants to stay on the topic - do not bring up other topics in this thread. If the discussion of this topic brings up a question or a point you would like to discuss, feel free to start another thread.

Please discuss the question asked in the op and not any side topics / questions that may arise -
otherwise I might have to close the thread.

*** Mod Hat Off ***

SimplyMe · Apr 10, 2006

Brennin said:
It goes to show the basis for your position is not factual.

Except, as I said, it does not show the basis for my position of Romans -- it has nothing to do with my position for Romans. That you try to force it here is simply poor logic.

Brennin said:
No, they do not. Moreover, I am not afraid to call a spade a spade.

So, still going with the "because I say so" argument? To borrow from someone you did respect in another thread and who actually normally would agree with you:

TheGMan said:
And you are of course welcome to your opinion but one feels it would carry more weight if you were actually prepared to address some of the arguments against it.

and

TheGMan said:
I don't think that's quite true. Others have quoted scholars who have argued that it means something other than simply "male-male relations". But you are arguing that such a position is intellectually unsustainable. That places the onus on you not only to show that some scholars agree with your interpretation of the phrase but that the scholars who do not are demonstrably mistaken or being intellectually dishonest. And I think you are a long way short of showing that. The point is not that your interpretation is demonstrably wrong but that the word is controversial and, now, ambiguous. It is for you to demonstrate that it is not.
For what it is worth, I agree that your interpretation is the most likely but I feel that the issue a long way shy of clear cut and I certainly wouldn't be swift to level a charge of intellectual dishonesty at someone who felt it should be interpreted differently.

Typically when a person can only see one side of an intellectual debate, despite an ongoing debate among experts, it is called prejudice.

Brennin said:
Like I said, your exegesis is simply wrong. I could recommend some relevant books if you would like.

Interesting, no comment on what precisely is wrong or why it is wrong, again fitting your pattern. I can recommend some relevant books for you, as well.

Brennin said:
SimplyMe said:

For clarity you may wish to find another word as dictionaries define it differently

Click to expand...

Note the parenthetical; I used homoeroticism in that sense.

I understood your comment the first time. If you notice, I didn't say that you can't have your own definition, simply that if you want to be understood that you may wish to find another word.

Last, to try and get back on topic, what does any of this have to do with how gay marriage would hurt yours (if you become married) other than because it's against your reading of the Bible or because it's "icky".

SimplyMe · Apr 11, 2006

susanann said:
If you seperated out what benefits and priveliges that you want (without being entitled to them) you might get lots of support from everyone else.

I would even support you on certain things.

If you want social security benefits, I would support changing our laws to allow an expansion of the definition of survivor. Why should an unmarried wife get nothing? Why should a poor brother get nothing? etc?

Why should a hospital deny a brother who is the true custodian visititation and life and death decisions? Why cant hospitals use power of attorny in their rules?

IF 2 children (what ever) have greatly different incomes, why cant they combine their income tax filings into one joint return and then get a lower total tax bill?

If you kept your sex life private, no one would deny you housing, or promotions in the armed forces. Nobody wants to hear anyone elses sexual habits/preferences/kinkiness/fettishes/etc.

I'm curious, do you have photos of your husband (assuming you are married) on display. Do you kiss him in public? What about holding his hand when out together? Do you go shopping together, look for apartments and/or a new home together? So why should a homosexual couple be required to keep their love for their partner private?

It's that time again: how does gay marriage harm?

Life is an experiment, experience it!

Attachments

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

IPU Stable Hand

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Wielder of the Holy Cudgel of Faith

Knight

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Similar threads