knightlight72 said:
I wasn't asked what can we we do to reduce costs. I was answering a question on rational reasons for why a woman should not be allowed to be legally recognized for marriage to another woman. Additional costs to supply benefits to a party that does have the same costs is rational.
Cost is not, and should not be, a valid reason to deny civil liberties to a minority group. It seems to me that what you're saying is that the fact of some additional cost is a valid reason to deny equal protection to a group of people, and I couldn't disagree more strongly.
knightlight72 said:
I read that defintion as well to make sure reasonable was appropriate. I went with defintion # 1 -exercise ability to reason. So it is reasonable as well.
I do not think that definition 1, "having or exercising the ability to reason," applies here, as it refers to people. A
rational person has or exercises the ability to reason. An idea may be
reasonable, but it cannot
have or
exercise the ability to reason. Definition 1 refers to people, not arguments. The best definition for a rational argument is 3: "consistent with or based on reason; logical." That is the one I will be using.
knightlight72 said:
And it is reasonable to try and make sure the best siuation for a child is there. Trying to find a family to raise a child with a mommy, and a daddy together should make sense as a "first pick". Studies show this, and quite frankly, a daddy is not a mommy, and a mommy is not a daddy.
Please provide links to any studies that you think demonstrate that heterosexual couples make better parents than homosexual couples. All the research that I have heard leads to the conclusion that both types of couples make equally-good parents.
knightlight72 said:
Other arrangements of what a family is can certainly vary, including split families, single parent familes, etc. But it is reasonable that we can define that a family with a mom and dad will be often better than other situations.
You're speaking here about families that do not have two parents living together in a committed relationship. These are not under discussion at the moment. Please provide studies that show heterosexual parents who are committed to one another in a healthy relationship to be better parents than homosexual parents who are committed to one another in a healthy relationship.
knightlight72 said:
The boy scouts must pay money for these law suits, while the ACLU is paid tax dollars to file and fight these law cases. Your tax dollars go to fight these things, while "non profit" places must pay out of their own pocket to defend their side of it.
The Boy Scouts only "have to" pay for these lawsuits because they insist on maintaining the privelege to discriminate while using government funds. If they simply agreed to stop taking government money and receiving preferential treatment regarding the use of public buildings and parks, then there would be no lawsuits and they would be left to discriminate in peace. However, an organization that receives government money and benefits must abide by government non-discrimination policies. They can't have their cake and eat it too.
knightlight72 said:
So not only are the boy scouts losing out, tax payers are losing out as well. none the less, I'll say that my argument for the boy scouts was too quick to suggest
that tehy will lose their tax exampt status. Really the boy scouts should be used only as an example of the cost to tax payers to fight camps for children, and helping children grow up with some strong and good values.
The only reason taxpayers are "losing out" is that the Boy Scouts insist on dragging the matter into court instead of quietly agreeing to abide by the law. If these court cases cost the taxpayers money, it's the Boy Scouts' fault. The law is clear: either don't discriminate, or don't take government money. The Boy Scouts want preferential treatment in violation of that law, and they're willing to cost the taxpayers money by taking the matter to court.
knightlight72 said:
What could be an example for loss of tax exampt status is in Canada, where they are facing various laws as they redefine what is and what isn't marriage.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39971
I looked at the article (in spite of the fact that I don't consider WorldNetDaily a reputable news source) and discovered immediately that it is
not saying that churches or religious groups would lose their non-profit status for failing to perform same-sex marriages. Instead, the article says--I'll even quote:
WorldNetDaily article said:
Christian churches in Canada are now facing the loss of their tax-exempt status should they become involved in partisan politics.
(Emphasis added)
Political-action organizations cannot be non-profit groups. If a non-profit group starts to get involved in political action, they are acting outside of thier capacity as a non-profit organization and should be taxed as any other political-action group. That makes simple legal sense.
That doesn't mean that a church isn't legally-allowed to refuse to perform same-sex marriages. In fact, it could even turn gay people away at the door if it wanted. But it may not campaign in a political fashion, because that is not what non-profit groups do.
knightlight72 said:
Yea, I keep hearing that, but then groups such as ACLU jump on board, and go for the next step.
Unless you provide documentation, this is nothing more than the slippery-slope fallacy.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html
knightlight72 said:
All this article says is that "opponents [of the bill] have
feared" that it will count the Bible as hate literature. That doesn't mean that such will actually be the case. People being afraid of something is not evidence that the thing will occur. Regardless, wouldn't objecting to that Canadian bill be best expressed as an objection to the manner in which hate-crime legislation is handled, rather than as an objection to gay marriage?
knightlight72 said:
No, but it is a reasonable role for voters to keep voting. Remember, the laws do say that marriage is between a man and woman. We're speaking of a new law, and no new laws must be enacted just because a secular group asks for it.
Certainly not. However, new laws must be enacted or old laws changed if a failure to do so would result in the denial of civil liberties to a minority group
knightlight72 said:
I'd say that beliefs systems of any style does not mean something will or will not be reason enough. The argument was for rational reasons, and voters make a rational reason for politicians willing to not bring something into law.
Honestly, (and no offense is here intended) the claims that you have asserted thus far do not stand up to scrutiny as "rational reasons." As I understand it, one needs a pretty compelling reason to deny equal protection of civil liberties to a minority group, and religious claims are insufficient.
