What does "pro-gay-rights" mean?

[jamielindas]

I'm asking a question about changing marriage law to reflect the changing married demographic in the US.

It is one thing to discriminate based on skin color and quite another to award money to people who will most likely have children over those who won't.

You can make lots of points about marriage not being solely about children if you want to, but that won't change the reality of the demographics you are trying justify merging.

Gay couples often(increasingly so) adopt children that would otherwise end up in the (terrible) foster system. Shouldn't we as a society be supporting this in the interest of our children?

 

[BigBadWlf]

Should this be the same with say a crazy person? Let's say you have a person who doesn't hurt anyone; however, he loves to eat garlic all the time, never washes, thinks lice make good pets and should not be harmed, will drink out of stranger's glasses in resturants, picks his nose publicly and wipes it on telephone poles, roots through people's trash looking for wasted food, listens to and dances to poka music whenever & wherever he chooses, starts conversations with anybody about the hats people are or not wearing, squirts soda out through his nose into the street, picks gum off the sidewalk and chews it, hands out free dollar bills he has once used to wipe his butt and then washed, wets on trees along the way because it helps water them, attemps to wash neighbor's windows using his tongue as a rag. Do you feel this person should be afforded the very same freedom to live this way and still get hired, still be able to move nextdoor to you, and basically move about the community unhampered?

Well…you apparently move about the community unhampered…

 

[flicka]

Should this be the same with say a crazy person?

I'd like to understand the mental process that makes the leap from homosexuals to crazy person. Why does this crazy person scenario not work with the laws as applied to heterosexuals?

 

[BigBadWlf]

I would say first, not second:
"Secondly, stable relationships are good for children. (I'll skip the specifics on this one).

What does this have to do with you advocating discrimination against minorities?

Society and the government has a vested interest in making stability and stable relationships desirable.

What does this have to do with you advocating discrimination against minorities?

Packaging the commitment and stability into an government and society recognized relationship and giving it a few perks is a great way to ensure it's normalcy in society."

What does this have to do with you advocating discrimination against minorities?

But, otherwise:

My point is that many of these "rights and privileges" are actually social programs and their demographic is clearly made up of people who primarily have children.

As noted fertility is not a requirement for heterosexual marriages.

I think it would be an opportune moment to make these social programs line up with the tax laws of the country, especially for those not yet in or nearly in a stage of life where they will be using them.

Tax laws don’t care who is homosexual.

The judicial divorce issue is one of prudence, and is good for the strengthening the second point as well, thus preventing abuse of the system.

You mean like people who try to issue the system to justify their hatreds and prejudices?

 

[fated]

Except in rather rare places same sex marriages are not legally recognized…thus the above mentioned inequality




If you were truly concurred about such money saving issues you would not be married yourself…thus removing the financial burden of your marriage from the rest of us tax payers


And how would you get past the fact that would be discriminatory towards people unable to have children.

That doesn’t even make sense

Gay couples often(increasingly so) adopt children that would otherwise end up in the (terrible) foster system. Shouldn't we as a society be supporting this in the interest of our children?

First, I don't see any reason to believe that the government has to be interested whatsoever in a persons sexual orientation with regards to marriage. I further believe that it can clearly see a typical reproductive difference between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples.

Now, that still doesn't address the other questions I have raised regarding the justifiability of the social programs that surround marriage as it is today. Many of these programs give money to people simply becuase they are married, and while living with another person does make consumption more efficient and provide a stable foundation for children, I don't see any reason why a couple with no children (by circumstance or choice) deserves the same level of social justice care as those who raise several children, all of whom cost considerable amounts of money.

I don't understand how I am ignoring the interest of the children who need stable couples, ideally for generations, for optimum care.

 

[BigBadWlf]

I'm asking a question about changing marriage law to reflect the changing married demographic in the US.

It is one thing to discriminate based on skin color and quite another to award money to people who will most likely have children over those who won't.

You can make lots of points about marriage not being solely about children if you want to, but that won't change the reality of the demographics you are trying justify merging.

Discrimination is discrimination no matter who the target is or how you play word games. Advocating discrimination for gays and lesbians is no different form advocating discrimination for black people or Jews or Muslims or the handicapped.

 

[fated]

Discrimination is discrimination no matter who the target is or how you play word games. Advocating discrimination for gays and lesbians is no different form advocating discrimination for black people or Jews or Muslims or the handicapped.

Right, the current system is not defined closely enough to not result in some kind of image of discrimination. Gay people think they deserve social programs of the often self-sterilized straight couples who often think they deserve the same social justice programs that the social security system is designed to serve.

Thus, people who choose situations that lead to increased prosperity desire the same bonuses as those who choose situations for the public good even, that lead to less prosperous conditions.

 

[fated]

Discrimination is discrimination no matter who the target is or how you play word games. Advocating discrimination for gays and lesbians is no different form advocating discrimination for black people or Jews or Muslims or the handicapped.

Reality is that gay people can be married.

 

[fated]

Why should the government be interested in whether or not roommates stay together? If they should be interested then the roommate system should be added as well, of course any social justice programs will need to be adjusted accordingly...

 

[jamielindas]

I'm confused as to what it is you are actually suggesting

 

[BigBadWlf]

First, I don't see any reason to believe that the government has to be interested whatsoever in a persons sexual orientation with regards to marriage.

Yet you want the government to discriminate based on that very reason

I further believe that it can clearly see a typical reproductive difference between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples.

And people can see differences in “typical” skin color variations. Yet that is not reason to discriminate

Now, that still doesn't address the other questions I have raised regarding the justifiability of the social programs that surround marriage as it is today.

You have failed to answer your own question as to why is should be all right to discriminate against infertile heterosexuals.

Many of these programs give money to people simply becuase they are married, and while living with another person does make consumption more efficient and provide a stable foundation for children,

Again if you were truly concerned about this you would not be married thus sparing the rest of the horrible tax burden of caring for your family

I don't see any reason why a couple with no children (by circumstance or choice) deserves the same level of social justice care as those who raise several children, all of whom cost considerable amounts of money.

There are those who don't see any reason why a couple with different skin color deserves the same level of social justice care as those who “properly” marry an individual of the “right” skin color

I don't understand how I am ignoring the interest of the children who need stable couples, ideally for generations, for optimum care.

Aside form the way you are ignoring the fact that millions of families gay/lesbian exist?

 

[WatersMoon110]

Marriage "rights" look like programs geared to those who ordinarily have children. And they are extended to all individual who wish to enter into the type of agreement that ordinarily produces children.

Perhaps we should split these programs away from marriage and offer them to people who have children, which would save money rather than giving more out (social security and other programs..)?

Actually, the only case where the tax benefits that go with marriage are tied in any way to the tax benefits that go with being a parent is for married couples with children. Childless married couples and unmarried parents still get tax benefits.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Right, the current system is not defined closely enough to not result in some kind of image of discrimination. Gay people think they deserve social programs of the often self-sterilized straight couples who often think they deserve the same social justice programs that the social security system is designed to serve.

And don’t forget those pesky blacks…they want equality too. The nerve of them. Oh wont somebody please think of the children?

Thus, people who choose situations that lead to increased prosperity desire the same bonuses as those who choose situations for the public good even, that lead to less prosperous conditions.

Like when same sex couples choose to spend tens of thousands of dollars to adopt unwanted and unloved children and give them a loving home and family

 

[fated]

I'm confused as to what it is you are actually suggesting

I didn't mean to be confusing. I try and roll answers together...

1)The government need not ignore obvious realities, such that men and women, while the same in dignity, are not objectively identical.
2)The government may acknowledge that the foundational block of society is the traditional family and defend it as such.
3)The government should attempt to use social justice program, already part of marriage, to encourage prosperous couples to have more children.
4)The government should give marital law some strength rather than making it only the right to divorce and social justice programs.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Reality is that gay people can be married.

And the reality of the deep south of the 1950’s was that blacks could drink from water fountains and go to movie theaters and send their children to school.

 

[fated]

And don’t forget those pesky blacks…they want equality too. The nerve of them. Oh wont somebody please think of the children?



Like when same sex couples choose to spend tens of thousands of dollars to adopt unwanted and unloved children and give them a loving home and family

How common is adoption among same-sex couples? I would like to see some statistics on that, I still see it as an extraordinary circumstance. How common is having half a dozen children?

 

[fated]

And the reality of the deep south of the 1950’s was that blacks could drink from water fountains and go to movie theaters and send their children to school.

Is it so degrading for society to judge ordinarily fertile sexed couples to be more beneficial to society than always sterile ones?

It doesn't matter whether people in the ordinarily fertile sexed couples are gay or not...

 

[WatersMoon110]

How common is adoption among same-sex couples? I would like to see some statistics on that, I still see it as an extraordinary circumstance. How common is having half a dozen children?

Is CNN reliable enough?

For 5-year-old Jackson Manford-Roach, Mother's Day means it's time to see his grandmothers.

"I don't need little lace gloves, which is what [Jackson and his classmates] made this year," Jeffrey Roach, one of Jackson's two fathers, said. "The other kids always ask who he's making the stuff for and he always makes his for his grandma."


Jackson is one of 65,000 adopted children being raised by same-sex parents in the United States, according to a March 2007 report compiled by the Urban Institute and the Williams Institute at University of California at Los Angeles School of Law.


The same report estimates more than 14,100 foster children were living with one or more gay or lesbian foster parent.

 

[fated]

Someone will probably imply that the government should passively encourage adultery, which is unambiguously bad for marriage...

 

[fated]

Is CNN reliable enough?

I could use prevalence statistics.