Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

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?

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?

[Anima]

I don't have anything to prove as I have not made any outlandish claims, pulled from my ass, about an acceptance of homosexuality leading to an acceptance of pedophilia, nor am I using any particular groups' rights purely to further my own bigoted views

You do not know my views. You only know my argument. Not everyone argues from a pathos or ethos perspective. Some of us endeavor to exercise logos.

A child is not capable of making a rational decision about sex. They have limited understanding of what sex is, and the weight of a decision to have sex with somone. A pre-pubescent child is also not programmed to become sexually aroused, they physically can't with the limited stage of development of their sex organs.

Interesting So a child is not capable of making a rational decision about sex, but is capable of making a decision about the life and death of themselves and others? That does not make sense in the slightest. One is an action which will not result in the death of another while the other is.

And again we're trying to argue "gay people can't procreate". I can procreate, I just can't do it with a member of the same sex. I want kids of my own? That can be arranged, I can get surrogacy or I can just have consensual sex with a woman and also have a man there to help me along. A child who has not yet reached puberty can not procreate, so your argument about being sexually attracted to what you can procreate with falls flat on that regard.

Bitch sit.

HA HA. Yes you can. And the State values your copulation with a woman via sex or dish.

I do not follow your comment on the sexual attraction related to procreation. Are you saying that people are attracted to children therefore attraction is not related to procreation? If so I just covered that in the explanation of pedophilia as a defective procreative evaluation.

[Mr.wizard]

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?

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?

1. Read what I wrote, I didn't say the cost benefit wasn't in the interest of the state, I said the cost benefit analysis for the state was not between hetero and homo. The benefit is equal rights for its citizens, when I say cost benefit analysis, I don't just mean dollars and cents.

2. Heterosexual marriage offers no benefit that gay marriage doesn't offer nor does it cost the state any more or less than a hetero marriage. Procreation is not a benefit of hetero marriage, two married gay people can procreate, also you do not have to be married to procreate. Their is no added benefit or increased harm to the state that hinges on the gender of the two people entering the contract.

3. Your still a bigot, I don't care how intelligent you think you are or how kindly you respond to me. The fact is, you think people who are homosexual are less valuable and not worthy of equal treatment, for no better reason than the fact that they are gay. You have made no arguments against homosexual marriage that couldn't be applied to hetero marriage.

[Ace]

no shade

What is a shade in the context that you are using the word

Pedophilia "love" is one-sided, making it manipulation at best and rape at worst. A man might claim that he "loves" a grown woman he raped, that's still rape. It's not the rest of the world who are failing to see the distinction between homosexuality and pedophilia, it's you, you're the one saying this shit.

NO!, on the contrary it is not me that is saying any pro pedophilia shit or comparing pedophilia to homosexuality, it the fucking  pedophilia that is saying this!!! I told you that this is what they think, what they are arguing.

If you ask me, I think you're a little too interested in the subject for my comfort.

Yes I am very interested in such horrifying behavior of pedophilia. That does tend to happen when you have seen its hellish effects of it on someone!!!!

It happens when you have children. All you want is for their health and safety that in order to do so a parent must know what bad is in this fuck-up world and how it can harem a child.

It happens when you find a nice flyer in your mail box say one of these fuck now lives in your neighborhood. Were kids live, were kids play, were kids walk form home to school that is just down the street!!!

It happens when you are making petitions with everyone name in the neighborhood , call, personally visit, and witting letters to state officials, Judges, the Department of Correction, to the state Senator’s, Mayor and Governor office to have this fuck remove from in a dominantly family oriented neighborhood. It happens when you’re constantly told, “oh, sorry but he served his time, has gone to therapy, meets with his parole officer every other week, is subject to surprise visitation form parole officer, we are monitoring him with an ankle brace. Please, If you have more questions please feel free to call use at. . .”

It happens when you are told that “he has rights” that amazingly lets him be and live around children!!!!

YES!  I DO SAY WHAT ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF A CHILD!!! THE RIGHT OF A PARENT TO PROTECT THERE CHILD!!!!!

SO, YES I AM FOR DENYING ANY PERSON'S DAMN RIGHTS THAT OVERRIDE THE PROTECTION AND WILL-BEING OF ANY CHILD!!!

And I'm sorry but what I said is true whether you like it or not. I stand by what I said earlier (which you failed to even address). I'll believe your concern is true when I see some real evidence that you have devoted a lot of your . . .

And what true evident are you requesting to see?

spare time (not "being a teacher" which you do primarily to make a living), energy and money to helping kids who are really abused.  . . .  but just saying being either doesn't mean you're a champion of childrens' rights.

HAHAHAHA . . Spoken like a true person who knows nothing about what it truly means to be a teacher!!! But you are right and I am very wrong.

Yes I am wrong that teachers are making so much money that they do not have to live from pay check to pay check. I am wrong when I say a teacher even use’s their own money, set up fundraisers and borrowed many for their students or to help fund programs at school. I am wrong to say that any teacher gives their energy/ time before, after, one the weekends, and even during the summer vacation to their students.

I am wrong to say that teaching and dealing with administration is at most 30% of what they do and the rest of the time is dealing with student issue. It is wrong to assume that teachers NEVER spend and personal energy for their student, only because “it’s their JOB “that they are so over payed for!”  

I am wrong in say that teachers have to deal with students who are:
- suffering from depression
- are committing self-mutilation,
- drink heavily, do some of the most harsh drugs
- getting pick on at school
- dealing with their parents’ divorce, a death of a family member, or a murdered in their family
- commit suicide
- students who has just been informed that they have AIDS or are HIV
- suffering from an eating disorder
- being extremal promiscuous
- parent abandonment
- that their mother’s new boyfriend now has the habit of wanting to sleep in the same bed with them or one of their siblings
- that their parents or gardenias are beating the living shit out of them or refuses to feed them
- have been raped
- sexual harassment
- have murdered
- parents who have been deported
- parents who lost their jobs
- killed in car accidents
- help and donate to the funeral of a student
- have raped
- become pregnant
- Lost the baby
- their child is born with a defect
- they have no relationship with their parents

(Any teachers out there who wish to add to the list on things I am sure I failed to mention because we know all too well that it is a very long list.)

If any of this was in a teacher’s contract that they will have to deal with, the number of teacher would be so few.

But i could be wrong.

Also on a side note. . . . anyone who is working with children, (of abuse or not, in poverty or not) by state law has to be trained in the dealing with such issue, be clear by the FBI with a fingerprint clearance card and some form state sanction certificate, document, or licenses. As well as a state sanction, or a state recognized organization regardless of profit or nonprofit. Because you are dealing with minors!!! And will be/are[u] privy to very privet records of Information[/u] of children that not just anyone can view or have information to its contents.

[Redbeard The Pink]

The same ways any average American citizen might, you bigoted shit-stick. What about being homosexual stops them from contributing to society by working, paying taxes, and being otherwise productive members of society? Not a damn thing. Fuck off with that shit...Christ on a cracker with tartar sauce...

 

Indeed a reason for the value as individuals persons.  But how does that support the state incurring additional cost in recognition of their relationships?

Because the state incurs the cost of recognizing the relationships of other citizens who contribute roughly the same amount they do.

[Anima]

Indeed a reason for the value as individuals persons.  But how does that support the state incurring additional cost in recognition of their relationships?

Because the state incurs the cost of recognizing the relationships of other citizens who contribute roughly the same amount they do.

Now you are getting it. The state should incur the cost of recognizing relationship of citizens whose RELATIONSHIPS provide a benefit to the State. (Do not make the mistake in saying if they are equal in one regard they are equal in all; which is a false equivalency. This is to say do not make the mistake of saying heteros and homos both pay taxes so both of their relationships should be recognized. The recognition of their relationship has no bearing on their ability to convey tax benefit to the state. It may even be said to recognition of relationships cost the state more therefore additional benefit must be provided by the relationship in particular rather than their individual person in general. Furthermore to say tax benefit should translate to state incurred cost in recognition of relationship would be akin to saying pedos also pay taxes therefore the state should recognize their relationships since they roughly contribute the same amount to the State as other citizens in regards to taxes. Which we know is not correct.)

As such the question becomes do hetero and homo relationships convey the same benefit to the state? You stipulate they roughly do. If I am to accept your assertion of roughly (which I do not agree is the case) than I would be recognizing that "roughly" the same is not the same. Furthermore, I would recognize "roughly" as being less than rather than greater than the same. So what is the primary difference? What benefit do hetero couples convey to the state, if any, that homo couples do not? Answer, additional tax and production base by means of natural procreation. Thus it may be readily said the state should incur a cost for the addition benefit of hetero relationships and it should not incur a cost for the homo relationships which convey no additional benefit to the state.

Now I imagine this is where someone will try to ride the IVF pony. To which we have previously expressed is a very financial and resource expensive procedure and in the end is nothing more than a hetero action by petri rather than penis and not to be confused as a homo act. In terms of redundancy it is foolish to be hetero by petri when it is so much more effective, easier, and cheaper to be hetero by penis. In either case the homo relationship conveys no benefit to the state (even IVF requires a hetero combination of male and female, to which the homo parties must seek out a third party) and thus the state should not incur a cost to recognize it. The hetero relationship does convey an additional benefit to the state which the state should incur a cost for receiving.

[robvalue]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLnWf1sQkjY

[Anima]

1. Read what I wrote, I didn't say the cost benefit wasn't in the interest of the state, I said the cost benefit analysis for the state was not between hetero and homo. The benefit is equal rights for its citizens, when I say cost benefit analysis, I don't just mean dollars and cents.

I do not mean dollars and cents either. But how do equal rights of citizens benefit the state? It benefits the citizens. but it burdens the state whose actions are subsequently restrained. Thus I am saying if the state is going to burden itself (incur a cost) it must get some benefit in return. So what is the benefit the State receives for its burden?

2. Heterosexual marriage offers no benefit that gay marriage doesn't offer nor does it cost the state any more or less than a hetero marriage. Procreation is not a benefit of hetero marriage, two married gay people can procreate, also you do not have to be married to procreate. Their is no added benefit or increased harm to the state that hinges on the gender of the two people entering the contract.

To repeat myself once again. Marriage recognition provides an incentive for hetero couples to procreate. Two married gay people cannot procreate (they require the intervention of a third party who is not privy to the marriage). Hetero couples can procreate without marriage which the state is most appreciative of. However, we are talking about the state incurring a cost for an additional benefit. Hetero procreation is a benefit to the state which justifies the state incurring addition burdens/costs. Homo marriage or relationships do not create a benefit for which the state should incur additional burdens/costs for. This is to say their is a benefit which may be derive from the parties of different genders entering the contract marriage contract which may not be derived from parties of the same gender entering the marriage contract.

3. Your still a bigot, I don't care how intelligent you think you are or how kindly you respond to me. The fact is, you think people who are homosexual are less valuable and not worthy of equal treatment, for no better reason than the fact that they are gay. You have made no arguments against homosexual marriage that couldn't be applied to hetero marriage.

As stated by Aristotle, "There is no greater form of inequality than to treat two unequal things as if they are equal." We do not treat all people equally. I have pointed this out numerous times as treating people equally harms the superior and the inferior by not giving proper recognition to the former and aid to the latter. It is bigoted and an oversimplification to say everyone should be treated equally regardless of the quality.

We have only been arguing in terms of biology and already it is apparent they are less valuable. I did not make them so. And you may want to call me a bigot for recognizing they are inferior, but it is really bigoted of you to do so. If you have a problem with it, take it up with Nature; but do not expect me to say it is valuable when it is not or it is equal when it is not.

Was that really all the pro-gay side had? False equivalency? I had hoped for much better.

[Redbeard The Pink]

Because the state incurs the cost of recognizing the relationships of other citizens who contribute roughly the same amount they do.

Now you are getting it.  The state should incur the cost of recognizing relationship of citizens whose RELATIONSHIPS provide a benefit to the State.  (Do not make the mistake in saying if they are equal in one regard they are equal in all; which is a false equivalency.  This is to say do not make the mistake of saying heteros and homos both pay taxes so both of their relationships should be recognized.  The recognition of their relationship has no bearing on their ability to convey tax benefit to the state.  It may even be said to recognition of relationships cost the state more therefore additional benefit must be provided by the relationship in particular rather than their individual person in general.  Furthermore to say tax benefit should translate to state incurred cost in recognition of relationship would be akin to saying pedos also pay taxes therefore the state should recognize their relationships since they roughly contribute the same amount to the State as other citizens in regards to taxes.  Which we know is not correct.)

As such the question becomes do hetero and homo relationships convey the same benefit to the state?  You stipulate they roughly do.  If I am to accept your assertion of roughly (which I do not agree is the case) than I would be recognizing that "roughly" the same is not the same.  Furthermore, I would recognize "roughly" as being less than rather than greater than the same.  So what is the primary difference?  What benefit do hetero couples convey to the state, if any, that homo couples do not?  Answer, additional tax and production base by means of natural procreation.  Thus it may be readily said the state should incur a cost for the addition benefit of hetero relationships and it should not incur a cost for the homo relationships which convey no additional benefit to the state.

Now I imagine this is where someone will try to ride the IVF pony.  To which we have previously expressed is a very financial and resource expensive procedure and in the end is nothing more than a hetero action by petri rather than penis and not to be confused as a homo act.  In terms of redundancy it is foolish to be hetero by petri when it is so much more effective, easier, and cheaper to be hetero by penis.  In either case the homo relationship conveys no benefit to the state (even IVF requires a hetero combination of male and female, to which the homo parties must seek out a third party) and thus the state should not incur a cost to recognize it.  The hetero relationship does convey an additional benefit to the state which the state should incur a cost for receiving.

If the benefits that come along with marriage make them more apt to maintain a household, start/run a business, adopt and raise children, and otherwise increase their contribution to society (the same way it does with many married people), then yes, they still contribute roughly the same amount to society that hetero couples do. The reason I use the term "roughly" is that I'm smart enough to not use absolute language unless I can cite what I'm saying as a documented fact. While what I'm saying is epistemologically likely, I would need to do research to justify the use of exacting language.


Your argument boils down to "They're not producing offspring, so they don't benefit the government." The problems with that are at least twofold. For one thing, many of the marriages the government recognizes are between couples where one or both cannot have children. For another, many gay people actually do produce their own offspring because orientation, like gender, is a spectrum. Many non-traditionally oriented people still have sexual encounters with the opposite sex, and many of those sexual encounters still result in viable offspring (most of whom turn out to be heterosexuals, before you even start that bullshit).

[robvalue]

Did anyone mention gay people can and do have children?

Just checking. There seems to be some very basic errors being made here.

Even if you rounded up and killed all the homosexuals, you'd get the same proportion in the next generation. You'd just have a smaller population.

It's called gay maths.