Response to Arcanus - "Do Homosexuals have equal rights"

[Paul the Human]

Marriage is a social and financial commitment/contract to share a life together. Take away the religious aspects and all that's left is the legal commitment and financial benefits that the marriage contract provides (which are actually outweighed by the high cost of living as a family). Which means... take government out of marriage and all you have left are roommates that have sex with each other.

[Tiberius]

(3rd December 2010 21:37)Jaysyn Wrote:  What about the legal kinship part?

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.

(3rd December 2010 23:21)Paul the Human Wrote:  Marriage is a social and financial commitment/contract to share a life together. Take away the religious aspects and all that's left is the legal commitment and financial benefits that the marriage contract provides (which are actually outweighed by the high cost of living as a family). Which means... take government out of marriage and all you have left are roommates that have sex with each other.

Not true. Take the government out of marriage and you have a bond between two people who love each other. Are you honestly saying that the government is the only reason that makes marriage special?

[Paul the Human]

(4th December 2010 00:02)Tiberius Wrote:  

(3rd December 2010 23:21)Paul the Human Wrote:  Marriage is a social and financial commitment/contract to share a life together. Take away the religious aspects and all that's left is the legal commitment and financial benefits that the marriage contract provides (which are actually outweighed by the high cost of living as a family). Which means... take government out of marriage and all you have left are roommates that have sex with each other.

Not true. Take the government out of marriage and you have a bond between two people who love each other. Are you honestly saying that the government is the only reason that makes marriage special?

Not at all. I'm married and I love my wife and would love her whether we were married or not. However, living together as a family is far more expensive than living separately. Legal marriage offers tax breaks and other benefits (not to mention the positive effect on credit ratings, insurance costs, etc) that make life as a family a little more financially feasible. It also offers protection, by way of being a legally binding contract. Without that, imagine how many more people would be preyed upon.

So, without the religion part, marriage is a legal contract... nothing more. Without the legal contract part... it is simply two people (+ children), who may or may not love each other... living as a family... not a marriage.

[Tiberius]

Then I think the real problem is what we are defining marriage as. I would define it as two people who have decided to spend the rest of their lives together. I don't see a need for the government to get involved in that affair, and I oppose people getting tax breaks and other benefits just because they have decided to live together and (maybe) have children.

I'm also not sure how you got the idea that it is cheaper to live separately than it is to live together. When together, the cost can be split, and it is a well known fact that flats/houses meant for 1 person are more expensive (per person) than flats/houses meant for 2 or more. Maybe it's just in this country, but I would be surprised if it were the case in the US as well.

[Paul the Human]

If you continued to live separately while you cohabitate and simply split the bills, as it were... sure... that would be cheaper. I'm talking about living as a family. A family puts a lot of extra financial demands on you that are not present when living singly.

[Tiberius]

Well like I said, in this country, it is cheaper for 2 people to live in a flat than it is for 1 person to live alone.

[lrh9]

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

[Tiberius]

(4th December 2010 01:01)lrh9 Wrote:  People in a relationship deserve some legal benefits and privileges that single people don't and shouldn't have.

Why?

[lrh9]

(4th December 2010 01:10)Tiberius Wrote:  

(4th December 2010 01:01)lrh9 Wrote:  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.

[Chuck]

(4th December 2010 01:10)Tiberius Wrote:  

(4th December 2010 01:01)lrh9 Wrote:  People in a relationship deserve some legal benefits and privileges that single people don't and shouldn't have.

Why?

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.