RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
August 10, 2015 at 5:46 pm
(This post was last modified: August 10, 2015 at 5:46 pm by Anima.)
(August 10, 2015 at 5:22 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: 1. Complete bullshit, it's not a question of who benefits the state more hetero people or homo people. It is a question of what is the cost/benefit analysis for allowing gays to marry versus not allowing them to marry. Polygamy, homosexual relationships, beastiality, peodophillia, are all dealt with on an individual basis when it comes to their legality, because they are not analogous and the cost/benefit is different for each one as it pertains to society. Also its not about having different laws for each relationship, it's about reviewing each relationship and deciding whether it should be legal under the marriage law.
HA HA. You want state recognition? Than the benefit is to be to the State in relation to the cost incurred by the State (under a cost benefit analysis). Once again you guys forget the State may discriminate against the individual if it has a compelling interest. That is to say if the benefit to the State is insufficient or the cost to the State is too great it may exclude the group.
Once again, What is the benefit conveyed to the State by recognition of their RELATIONSHIP?
(August 10, 2015 at 5:22 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: 2. You sir are a disgusting bigot, this is evidenced by your attempts to make this argument about who are more valuable as people hetero or homo. Homosexuals are working citizens they pay taxes and contribute to society, there is no good reason why they should be denied equal rights.
Bigot? Far from it. I am considering your opinion and responding in kind. I am neither ignorant, nor inconsiderate. Calling me a bigot does not make you right and resorting to ad hominem only serves to show how insufficient your argument is from a logical perspective.
Indeed they are. And are not being determined according to their ability to work or pay taxes. This is their personal contribution to the state to which they are recognized in accordance with that of every other person. But we are talking about the State recognition of their relationships. So what benefits does their relationship convey such that the State should incur the additional cost of recognizing them?
