Response to Arcanus - "Do Homosexuals have equal rights"

[Demonaura]

People in a relationship deserve some legal benefits and privileges that single people don't and shouldn't have.

Why?

It is not something that can be explained. You have to love someone to know what rights and privileges you want them to have. You don't know what rights and privileges couples should have, and you don't understand why they need legal protection. That means that either you don't love anyone, or you can't empathize with people who have had these rights and privileges interfered with. Possibly both. I can say with certainty that all of your positions on policies show no concern with what happens to other people. If what another person or couple wants falls out of your myopic view of what government should be then it shouldn't happen. You ask me what gives couples the right to affirm their rights and privileges. I ask you what gives you the right to deny them those things.

I'm actually with Adrian I think, because I don't recall reading anything about taking away rights people have. What I saw was eliminating the imbalance that favors couples over individuals.

If we simply apply the same tax laws to any homeowner, regardless of marital status then the issue is resolved. They can be the laws as they apply to the individuals right now or we can simply extend the laws that govern married couples to include those who live alone and it becomes fair to everyone.

Also, what gives you the right to deny those rights to those who do not wish to marry? Since you ask that same question of Adrian.

[lrh9]

I'm actually with Adrian I think, because I don't recall reading anything about taking away rights people have. What I saw was eliminating the imbalance that favors couples over individuals.

Why is it an imbalance? Why can't there be rights and privileges exclusive to couples?

If we simply apply the same tax laws to any homeowner, regardless of marital status then the issue is resolved. They can be the laws as they apply to the individuals right now or we can simply extend the laws that govern married couples to include those who live alone and it becomes fair to everyone.

Marriage law involves more than taxes.

Also, what gives you the right to deny those rights to those who do not wish to marry? Since you ask that same question of Adrian.

People in a relationship deserve some legal benefits and privileges that single people don't and shouldn't have.

[Dotard]

And you ain't answering the question. Why?

Your previous crap about if you have to ask then you ain't never loved is just a bunch of hogwash.

Why the hell should some people be extended rights and others not based solely on their decision to co-habitat and possibly breed?

And just exactly what rights are you talking about that should not apply to the single person? We go to the back of the bus? Drink from different fountains? What?

[Demonaura]

I'm actually with Adrian I think, because I don't recall reading anything about taking away rights people have. What I saw was eliminating the imbalance that favors couples over individuals.

Why is it an imbalance? Why can't there be rights and privileges exclusive to couples?

If we simply apply the same tax laws to any homeowner, regardless of marital status then the issue is resolved. They can be the laws as they apply to the individuals right now or we can simply extend the laws that govern married couples to include those who live alone and it becomes fair to everyone.

Marriage law involves more than taxes.

Also, what gives you the right to deny those rights to those who do not wish to marry? Since you ask that same question of Adrian.

People in a relationship deserve some legal benefits and privileges that single people don't and shouldn't have.

I grant I was oversimplifying the marrage laws but, you have still yet to explain why married people are deserving of better treatment than those who stay single.

I have almost no sex drive and no plans on getting married, why am I less deserving than two people who chose to live together? What is so great about them that they deserve preferential treatment?

As for your first question you answered it yourself, it is an imbalance because it goes to some and not others. Why are your rights dependant on you taking a single mate of the correct gender and living in the same house?

[lrh9]

Why should a person you don't love get the same rights to interact with you as a person you love? Why should a person you love and want to interact with be denied the right to interact with you and treated by the government as if they were someone you don't love and want to interact with?

---

[quote='Demonaura' pid='108014' dateline='1291424555']
I grant I was oversimplifying the marrage laws but, you have still yet to explain why married people are deserving of better treatment than those who stay single.

I have almost no sex drive and no plans on getting married, why am I less deserving than two people who chose to live together? What is so great about them that they deserve preferential treatment?

[quote]As for your first question you answered it yourself, it is an imbalance because it goes to some and not others. Why are your rights dependant on you taking a single mate of the correct gender and living in the same house?
[/quote]

What's wrong with an imbalance? There are imbalances everywhere. There is nothing that can prove an imbalance is wrong. In fact, people naturally chose imbalance. If it is a life and death decision between me and someone else chances are I'm going to try to do something to ensure that I live instead of the other person.

But let's use a hypothetical to discuss this. Say that you are in an accident and left in a coma. You are taken to a private hospital. One of their rules is that only one person may see someone in the hospital at a time, and each person is allowed to have an hour. Say that your wounds are fatal. You are going to die within the next hour. Say that I come to the hospital to visit you, and I arrive before your hypothetical partner whom you love very much. How would your system work to ensure that your partner got to spend your last hour alive with you without giving your partner or your status as a couple any preferential legal treatment over me? Or would you be such a bastard as to not give a damn who was in that room?

[Tiberius]

It is not something that can be explained. You have to love someone to know what rights and privileges you want them to have. You don't know what rights and privileges couples should have, and you don't understand why they need legal protection. That means that either you don't love anyone, or you can't empathize with people who have had these rights and privileges interfered with. Possibly both.

No, I do love lots of people, and I've been in love with people. I believe that everyone should have rights and certain privileges. I'm a proponent of equality, which means you treat everyone as if they were equal. In no possible way could marriage benefits fit in with that model, because it treats people who are married in a different way to people who are not.

I can say with certainty that all of your positions on policies show no concern with what happens to other people. If what another person or couple wants falls out of your myopic view of what government should be then it shouldn't happen.

A ridiculous assertion. I am of course concerned with what happens to other people, but I do not think it is the responsibility of the government to play the part of the nanny and look after us like we are completely unable. Your last sentence of course applies to everyone. If I proposed something that you personally didn't think went in line with *your* view of government, you wouldn't want it either.

You ask me what gives couples the right to affirm their rights and privileges. I ask you what gives you the right to deny them those things.

Oh no you don't. Privileges (which are what we are talking about here) aren't put in place by default, so you must back them up with an argument. I've already outlined why I don't think they should they should exist anyway.

If it can be demonstrated that people in a relationship enjoy such emotional benefits as enable them to be less troublesome and incurr less cost, and be more productive and pay more tax, then it would could be good policy for the government to encourage such a socially profitable arrangement by returning a portion of the incremental tax income.

Right, but this is ignoring all the relationships that do not enjoy such benefits. Around 40% of marriages end in divorce, which costs the state in time and money since it has to go through the justice system. Countless numbers of "couples" take advantage of the system to get money as well.

[Dotard]

But let's use a hypothetical to discuss this. Say that you are in an accident and left in a coma. You are taken to a private hospital. One of their rules is that only one person may see someone in the hospital at a time, and each person is......blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda.....

Nobody was on that page.

Since you were speaking in terms of obvious rights like I don't have the right to fuck your wife or your wife has the 'special (legal) right' to take money out of your wallet and I'm sure for most here that would be a given, I submit your initial one-liner post, "People in a relationship deserve some legal benefits and privileges that single people don't and shouldn't have." was designed specifically to troll.

This is evidenced by your inclusion of the word "legal". If you had wrote"People in a relationship deserve some benefits and privileges that single people don't and shouldn't have." then went on to explain like inheretance, right to be with them in dying hour, and the right to fuck exclusively then you probably wouldn't have gotten much of an arguement.

You crafted your one-liner for the sole purpose of trolling.

Congrats, you hooked me for a moment. Didn't think you were the type.

[lrh9]

A ridiculous assertion. I am of course concerned with what happens to other people, but I do not think it is the responsibility of the government to play the part of the nanny and look after us like we are completely unable.

People do need help and protection to survive, and they want help and protection to be happy. Invariably people without government fail to provide the necessary or desired level of help and protection to each other.

Your last sentence of course applies to everyone. If I proposed something that you personally didn't think went in line with *your* view of government, you wouldn't want it either.

What you are saying doesn't apply to me. Of course I defend my style of government, but my style of government isn't myopic and it isn't built on my own myopic interests.

Oh no you don't. Privileges (which are what we are talking about here) aren't put in place by default, so you must back them up with an argument. I've already outlined why I don't think they should they should exist anyway.

Technically almost nothing is default. Living people have only two guarantees. Living and acting. Ultimately arguments don't matter. There is no such thing as logical proof of rights or proof of privileges. Rights and privileges are literally fought for and protected by people who value them. War is merely politics with diplomacy fails, and I've tried diplomacy to change your values. That's failed, so if you ever make policy changes to take rights and privileges from married people simply because you don't have them I can almost guarantee that people would rise up to smack you and your political party down so hard it would be funny.

[Tiberius]

People do need help and protection to survive, and they want help and protection to be happy. Invariably people without government fail to provide the necessary or desired level of help and protection to each other.

Strawman. I never argued, and have never argued that governments shouldn't help and protect their citizens. This also has nothing to do with the point at hand, which is marriage benefits.

What you are saying doesn't apply to me. Of course I defend my style of government, but my style of government isn't myopic and it isn't built on my own myopic interests.

My style of government isn't myopic either. It is based on Libertarianism and republicanism, whereas yours is based on some leftist ideology. Either way, you wouldn't like it if I suggested that drugs were all legalised, and I wouldn't like it if you said we should increase marriage benefits. Don't try and play the apathy card when you are clearly not apathetic, having taken a stand in this thread and attempted to argue it.

Technically almost nothing is default. Living people have only two guarantees. Living and acting. Ultimately arguments don't matter. There is no such thing as logical proof of rights or proof of privileges. Rights and privileges are literally fought for and protected by people who value them. War is merely politics with diplomacy fails, and I've tried diplomacy to change your values. That's failed, so if you ever make policy changes to take rights and privileges from married people simply because you don't have them I can almost guarantee that people would rise up to smack you and your political party down so hard it would be funny.

Firstly, the reason I want to take privileges (not rights) away from married people isn't because I don't have them. If I were married, I would feel the exact same way about marriage rights. You do not have to be part of a group of people to feel that what they have is unfair; my support of gay rights is an example of that.

Secondly, despite your very eloquent language, this paragraph did absolutely nothing to answer the question: Why should married people have more privileges than single people?

[Jaysyn]

What about it? People can sign documents to confirm they are married if they want to. It doesn't have to be done via the government.

Are you saying the simple signing of a contract should be able to assign a legal kinship with another human? That would open the door to line & group marriages. While I personally would be cool with that, I don't think it would fly with most people.