Logic behind gay marriage

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I would like to hear some logical reasons for gay marriage.
I personally don't care, I just want to hear the logic for it
I don't care cliché emotional reasons
LOGICAL reasons

The "logic" (i.e., legitimate government interest) behind marriage is the promotion and preservation of stable nuclear family units for CHILDREN. The principle benefits granted towards these objectives are joint tax returns and spousal social security benefits, both of which encourage/allow one parent to devote more time to child rearing.

The civil rights/equality argument for gay marriage is largely an invented excuse for individuals to access these monetary benefits without the bother of having to raise children.

Another fail, since procreation is not a prerequisite for marriage, as infertile opposite-sex couples are allowed to marry.

Neither tradition nor procreation are a legitimate, rational basis to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I would like to hear some logical reasons for gay marriage.
I personally don't care, I just want to hear the logic for it
I don't care cliché emotional reasons
LOGICAL reasons

a 'marriage' is a contract. hence, why you have to sign papers to get a license to marry. the courts have jurisdiction over marriage because it is a contract.

since our laws view marriage as a contract, denying a legal class of citizens the right to "contract" violates the 14th amendment.

Correct.

In order to deny a class of persons access to a given law, the state must provide a rational basis for the exclusion, justify the exclusion with objective, documented evidence, and the state’s motive to deny access to the law must be free of animus toward the excluded class of persons.

Thus far opponents of equal protection rights have failed to meet this burden, and have demonstrated a sole motive of animus toward gays.

 

[PJC]

The logic behind allowing gay marriage:

1.The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, (paraphrased for brevity): no state shall make a law that will abridge the rights of citizens nor deprive them of life, liberty, or property without due process, nor deny them equal protection.

2.Marriage has been deemed by SCOTUS as a fundamental right.

3.Limiting any fundamental right (be it the right to bear arms, worship as one chooses, speech, privacy, marriage, etc) is an abridgment of that right by definition. For example using a limited definition of speech to encompass only oral speech, limits/abridges the citizens’ rights to free speech; using the limited definition of “arms” to encompass only handguns, limits/abridges the citizens’ rights to bear arms; using a limited definition of marriage to encompass only between one man and one woman, limits/abridges the citizens’ rights to marriage.

4.In order to justifiably limit any of those fundamental rights using due process, the State must show a compelling state interest for said limitation. For example, the State may be able to show an obvious compelling state interest for limiting certain religious practices if the said religious practice violates the rights of other citizens (such as human sacrifice).

5.No compelling state interest has been produced to limit marriage to only one man and one woman. However, the State may be able to show an obvious compelling state interest for limiting marriage to adults only as a child cannot give informed, legal consent.

6.Thus abridging the right to marriage of the consenting non-familial adult of one’s choice is unconstitutional.

And from my experience of debating with conservatives, liberals, and those in-between; I have most often found conservatives utilizing emotion and fallacy; conversely, liberals, in my experience, have more often employed logic, law, and critical reasoning skills than conservatives. When conservatives’ arguments have been shown to be fallacious and completely illogical, they quite often resort to distinctly emotional outbursts, anger and resentment, as clearly evidenced by their over-reliance on ad hominem attacks, exclamation marks, and all caps “shouting”.

It seems these exact same justifications could be used to remove the limits on the number of participants in a marriage as well, as long as they were all adults. What "compelling state interest" could there be in preventing a man from having several wives (or vice versa), or a group of men in multiple partner marriage? And why consenting "non-familial" adults? Don't relatives have rights?

Yes, the same could be used to remove limits on # of participants. What is your point? Polygamy has existed for thousands of years. If the state has no compelling interest for limiting it to one and one, why should they? You tell me.

As for non-familial adults; if the state has a compelling interest in limiting it in such a way, then they should; if they do not, then they should not. Pretty simple really. I don't know why some people have such a hard time understanding that simple concept.

Perhaps you should research the in depth background on the 9th Amendment of the US Constitution. The government does not grant us our rights. It is just the opposite. Rights belong to us inherently; we only permit the govt some authority to limit some portion of our rights. We as human beings have the right to do damn near anything we want; we group together in communities of villages, towns, and states and form governments to whom we give restricted permission to limit some portion of our rights in some ways only for the good of the community as a whole.

Can you think of any compelling reasons why we should deny relatives from marrying each other? If not, then you have your answer; if so, then you also have your answer.

Basic logic and common sense there.

Tell me; why should we as free Americans permit our govt to arbitrarily, indiscriminately and for no logical, legitimate purpose, limit our rights?

 

[rdean]

My point exactly
There is not any "logical" reasoning for it to happen..
It is an emotional plea
Which is most of the lefts arguments

I think you misunderstood. I support SSM, and I believe there is no logical reason why it shouldn't be allowed.
Its not an emotional plea, its about equal rights being denied for no reason.

Liberalism is 80% emotional
NO logic
What is your point?
Because my point is they lack logic
Why wouldn't they be denied?
What logical reasoning should tyhey have to get married?
That us what I am trying to understand
Thgey try to run the country off emotions, and that is NOT GOOD POLICY

I hardly know where to begin.

 

[PJC]

I would like to hear some logical reasons for gay marriage.
I personally don't care, I just want to hear the logic for it
I don't care cliché emotional reasons
LOGICAL reasons

Actually the burden of proof lies with the state, in its desire to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law.

You should be seeking ‘logical’ reasons as to why the state should not obey the 14th Amendment.

Stop it with this nonsense already. Marriage was never created with the thought of being inclusive to gays. It us an institution bonded by a man and woman to be the backbone of a family. Gay activists, such as yourself are in fact trying to change the original concept of marrige to be more inclusive.
Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves. - Ronald Wilson Reagan

Stop it with this nonsense already. Citizenship and voting was never created with the thought of being inclusive to blacks and females. It is an institution of white men only. Black activists and women activists, such as yourself are in fact trying to change the original concept of citizenship to be more inclusive.

Rather ironic that you post your nonsense wishing the government to impose unjustified limitations on citizens while simultaneously espousing the belief in limited government intrusion into the lives of citizens. Maybe you want arbitrary, nonsensical unjustified govt intrusion in others' lives, just not your own???

 

[Franticfrank]

Is there really anything wrong with gays getting married? It won't have any effects on me. If it gives them equal rights and makes them happy, then why not? It really is harmless and will bring equality to people who have been long discriminated against.

 

[Noomi]

Is there really anything wrong with gays getting married? It won't have any effects on me. If it gives them equal rights and makes them happy, then why not? It really is harmless and will bring equality to people who have been long discriminated against.

Some people are offended by it, and that is why they don't want it legal. Or their religion is against it, so therefore it should be banned. Or they will be forced to accept it, or some other stupid reason.

 

[HomeInspect]

I am for keeping government out of my life and personal decisions in every way shape and form possible. I am very conservative on most issues, and in my opinion, keeping government out of all of your personal decisions is best, (as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else). Why should I care if two gay people want to be married? I don't care who marries who, (as long as they are kind to their dogs !!)

 

[editec]

Marriage is a civil contract.

Preventing people from entering into one violates their civil rights.

THAT is the logic behind the movement for Gay marriages.

You may disagree with it based on your religious beliefs.

You may think that marriage is a holy institution defined by your GOD.

But we do not live in your theocratic wnation, we live in a secular nation.

But if gay marriage really troubles you?

Move to Iran or some other Moslem nation where such behavior is ALSO thought immoral because YOUR GOD objects. (you are both praying to the same OT GOD..never forget that, Christians)

Go ahead..move

You know you're be more comfortable living with the other magical thinkers in a theocratic state.

 

[Yurt]

The "logic" (i.e., legitimate government interest) behind marriage is the promotion and preservation of stable nuclear family units for CHILDREN. The principle benefits granted towards these objectives are joint tax returns and spousal social security benefits, both of which encourage/allow one parent to devote more time to child rearing.

The civil rights/equality argument for gay marriage is largely an invented excuse for individuals to access these monetary benefits without the bother of having to raise children.

i'm not sure if this is your logic or you're just opining.

the logic you present is actually quite illogical. couples can have children without marriage and in fact, this happens frequently. further, there are couples who cannot have children. they have access to tax benefits, yet, they produce no children.

get it?

Apparently more than you do. Married couples are more likely to provide "stable nuclear family units for children" than unmarried couples. Historically, it was a valid presumption that most married couples would have children. Since this is no longer the case, these tax benefits should be limited to married couples with minor children.

why would you deny homosexual couples the right to marry?

 

[HereAmIAmMe]

I have yet to hear a real rational argument against gay marriage that could not be refuted.

The only problem I have with it is that it will add a few more people sucking on the teat of the government. That isn't an argument against gay marriage really. More of a complaint against the thousands of people in the country with their hands firmly stuck out waiting for the government to fill them.

Why not add a few more to the crowd that already has the government up to their elbows in my wallet. It probably won't be enough people to make a difference anyways...

 

[Pop23]

Because there is no logical reason not to allow it.

My point exactly
There is not any "logical" reasoning for it to happen..
It is an emotional plea
Which is most of the lefts arguments

So I take it that you believe all marriages should be banned then? Based on your thinking, there is not logical reason for marriage period, it's just all emotional. So why not ban all marriage?

Maybe legal marriage is simply a concept that no longer has a place to exist any longer.

What we need is an entirely new entity that only creates benefits to those that choose to have or raise children. All other committed relationships fall into a less beneficial category.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Maybe legal marriage is simply a concept that no longer has a place to exist any longer.

What we need is an entirely new entity that only creates benefits to those that choose to have or raise children. All other committed relationships fall into a less beneficial category.

OK, not saying I'm for or agains, but let's see how this new "less beneficial category" would work on a few specifics:

1. Would the participants in this new category be considered "next-of-kin" for hospital visitation and be the primary individual responsible for medical decision making if the spouse is incapacitated or to ill to make their medical wishes known, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

2. Would the participants in this new category be eligible for spousal insurance so that one spouse can go on the other spouses insurance policy, something not currently currently contingent on having children or not?

3. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of community property in the event of divorce, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

4. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married absent a will in terms of inheretance, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

5. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple joint tax filing, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

6. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of community property in the event of divorce, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

7. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of survivor benefits in the event of death (Social Security, Military Survivor Benefit Plan, Survivor Pension Plans, etc), something not currently contingent on having children or not?

8. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms immigration preference and legal immigrant status if a US Citizen enters this status with a foreign national, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

9. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of family status for Federal Family Medical Leave protections, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

10. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms decision making power for burial and cremation, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

11. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of eligibility for burial in a national veteran cemetery of one of the spouses was an honorably discharged veteran, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

12. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms ability to sue the responsible party in terms of wrongful death of one spouse, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

13. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of judicial protections and evidentiary immunity, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

14. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of joint financial arrangements and joint bankrupcy, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

15. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms Estate Tax exemptions where if one spouse dies the surviving spouse can claim the married exemption ($500,000) instead of having to take the single exemption ($250,000) if the sale of the home occurs within two years, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

16. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of the military for Quarters Allowance, access to base facilities (Commissary, Exchange, MWR, etc.), participation in TRICARE (health coverage program) or base clinics/hospitals, and finally authorized spousal travel and relocation for change of station orders; something not currently contingent on having children or not?


*************************

Let us know how that would work for the above examples, at last count there were 1,138 laws representing rights, responsibilities and benefits in just federal law pertaining to Civil Marriage. Only 1,122 to go. Then of course if there are 300 laws impacted by marriage in each of the 50 states under the laws of that state, and the District of Columbia, that would make - let me see here - another 15,300 (51*300) laws that would have to be changed/updated to account for this new less beneficial legal status.


>>>>

 

[Pop23]

Maybe legal marriage is simply a concept that no longer has a place to exist any longer.

What we need is an entirely new entity that only creates benefits to those that choose to have or raise children. All other committed relationships fall into a less beneficial category.

OK, not saying I'm for or agains, but let's see how this new "less beneficial category" would work on a few specifics:

1. Would the participants in this new category be considered "next-of-kin" for hospital visitation and be the primary individual responsible for medical decision making if the spouse is incapacitated or to ill to make their medical wishes known, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

2. Would the participants in this new category be eligible for spousal insurance so that one spouse can go on the other spouses insurance policy, something not currently currently contingent on having children or not?

3. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of community property in the event of divorce, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

4. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married absent a will in terms of inheretance, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

5. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple joint tax filing, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

6. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of community property in the event of divorce, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

7. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of survivor benefits in the event of death (Social Security, Military Survivor Benefit Plan, Survivor Pension Plans, etc), something not currently contingent on having children or not?

8. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms immigration preference and legal immigrant status if a US Citizen enters this status with a foreign national, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

9. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of family status for Federal Family Medical Leave protections, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

10. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms decision making power for burial and cremation, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

11. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of eligibility for burial in a national veteran cemetery of one of the spouses was an honorably discharged veteran, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

12. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms ability to sue the responsible party in terms of wrongful death of one spouse, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

13. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of judicial protections and evidentiary immunity, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

14. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of joint financial arrangements and joint bankrupcy, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

15. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms Estate Tax exemptions where if one spouse dies the surviving spouse can claim the married exemption ($500,000) instead of having to take the single exemption ($250,000) if the sale of the home occurs within two years, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

16. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of the military for Quarters Allowance, access to base facilities (Commissary, Exchange, MWR, etc.), participation in TRICARE (health coverage program) or base clinics/hospitals, and finally authorized spousal travel and relocation for change of station orders; something not currently contingent on having children or not?


*************************

Let us know how that would work for the above examples, at last count there were 1,138 laws representing rights, responsibilities and benefits in just federal law pertaining to Civil Marriage. Only 1,122 to go. Then of course if there are 300 laws impacted by marriage in each of the 50 states under the laws of that state, and the District of Columbia, that would make - let me see here - another 15,300 (51*300) laws that would have to be changed/updated to account for this new less beneficial legal status.


>>>>

I would think you are not creating a new category. You are creating two new categories.

1. Two committed adults that are not raising a child would be allowed all of the above minus #5

2. Two committed adults that are raising children.
All of the above. The child creates a greater expense so this would give them a tax break in helping raise the child.

In the first the relationship includes just 2 people. The second includes 3 or more, counting the child(ren)

Edited to add: if we are really talking about equal treatment, what does the number of changes matter as long as we get to the stated goal?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Maybe legal marriage is simply a concept that no longer has a place to exist any longer.

What we need is an entirely new entity that only creates benefits to those that choose to have or raise children. All other committed relationships fall into a less beneficial category.

OK, not saying I'm for or agains, but let's see how this new "less beneficial category" would work on a few specifics:

1. Would the participants in this new category be considered "next-of-kin" for hospital visitation and be the primary individual responsible for medical decision making if the spouse is incapacitated or to ill to make their medical wishes known, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

2. Would the participants in this new category be eligible for spousal insurance so that one spouse can go on the other spouses insurance policy, something not currently currently contingent on having children or not?

3. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of community property in the event of divorce, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

4. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married absent a will in terms of inheretance, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

5. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple joint tax filing, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

6. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of community property in the event of divorce, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

7. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of survivor benefits in the event of death (Social Security, Military Survivor Benefit Plan, Survivor Pension Plans, etc), something not currently contingent on having children or not?

8. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms immigration preference and legal immigrant status if a US Citizen enters this status with a foreign national, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

9. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of family status for Federal Family Medical Leave protections, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

10. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms decision making power for burial and cremation, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

11. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of eligibility for burial in a national veteran cemetery of one of the spouses was an honorably discharged veteran, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

12. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms ability to sue the responsible party in terms of wrongful death of one spouse, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

13. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of judicial protections and evidentiary immunity, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

14. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of joint financial arrangements and joint bankrupcy, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

15. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms Estate Tax exemptions where if one spouse dies the surviving spouse can claim the married exemption ($500,000) instead of having to take the single exemption ($250,000) if the sale of the home occurs within two years, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

16. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of the military for Quarters Allowance, access to base facilities (Commissary, Exchange, MWR, etc.), participation in TRICARE (health coverage program) or base clinics/hospitals, and finally authorized spousal travel and relocation for change of station orders; something not currently contingent on having children or not?


*************************

Let us know how that would work for the above examples, at last count there were 1,138 laws representing rights, responsibilities and benefits in just federal law pertaining to Civil Marriage. Only 1,122 to go. Then of course if there are 300 laws impacted by marriage in each of the 50 states under the laws of that state, and the District of Columbia, that would make - let me see here - another 15,300 (51*300) laws that would have to be changed/updated to account for this new less beneficial legal status.


>>>>

I would think you are not creating a new category. You are creating two new categories.

1. Two committed adults that are not raising a child would be allowed all of the above minus #5

2. Two committed adults that are raising children.

Nope just using your two conditions. A couple with children and a couple without children.

Civil Marriage = a man + a woman, a man + a man, or a woman + a woman if they are raising a child.

Civil Union (just to pick a name) = a man + a woman, a man + a man, or a woman + a woman but do not have children.

All of the above. The child creates a greater expense so this would give them a tax break in helping raise the child.

So Civil Union and Civil Marriage is treated the same for all of the above items except that those without children cannot file a joint return based on combined income on a single tax return. They must file separate tax returns, yet they are eligible for the same treatment under inheritance tax, property tax, and estate tax rules.

In the first the relationship includes just 2 people. The second includes 3 or more, counting the child(ren)

Obviously, that was the condition you set and I complied with.

Edited to add: if we are really talking about equal treatment, what does the number of changes matter as long as we get to the stated goal?

Nope.

It does matter though in how the people decide that the stated goal of marriage equality will be achieved.

Option A: You can have one name where all the (estimated) 16,438 laws are applied equally. Cost to taxpayers, pretty minor since the structure already exists.

Option B: You can set up parallel system to include a new category for those same-sex and different-sex couples without children, but the cost will be higher.


***************************************

As you said though Civil Marriage will apply to all couples with children, which would include same-sex couples, I'm not sure I see the logic in creating a separate but almost equal system with a new delineating factor to separate the two (that being, being a parent).

I understand your logic, I might not sure I agree with it (but I'll go along with it), but don't you think those that oppose the use of term Civil Marriage for same-sex couples will oppose your plan because same-sex couples with children would be getting Civilly Married?

>>>>

 

[Flopper]

I would like to hear some logical reasons for gay marriage.
I personally don't care, I just want to hear the logic for it
I don't care cliché emotional reasons
LOGICAL reasons

Equal treatment of course

 

[Pop23]

My meaning is not to keep same genders from obtaining a document with the word "marriage" on it, but simply that the word itself, outside of the obvious religious implications, may have ran its course, become obsolete. It would seem to me that changing the laws to two different terms (per my brainstorm), would take no more time than the alternative.

Edited to add: I couldn't tell you who would object, part of the reason I posted it was to hear the objections. Heck, after thinking about it for awhile I might find an objection? Hey, it happens.

 

[WorldWatcher]

My meaning is not to keep same genders from obtaining a document with the word "marriage" on it, but simply that the word itself, outside of the obvious religious implications, may have ran its course, become obsolete. It would seem to me that changing the laws to two different terms (per my brainstorm), would take no more time than the alternative.

Edited to add: I couldn't tell you who would object, part of the reason I posted it was to hear the objections. Heck, after thinking about it for awhile I might find an objection? Hey, it happens.

Sometimes it painful to actually try to think through something instead of regurgitating talking points.



>>>>

 

[Pop23]

My meaning is not to keep same genders from obtaining a document with the word "marriage" on it, but simply that the word itself, outside of the obvious religious implications, may have ran its course, become obsolete. It would seem to me that changing the laws to two different terms (per my brainstorm), would take no more time than the alternative.

Edited to add: I couldn't tell you who would object, part of the reason I posted it was to hear the objections. Heck, after thinking about it for awhile I might find an objection? Hey, it happens.

Sometimes it painful to actually try to think through something instead of regurgitating talking points.



>>>>

Nice. My suggestion fills all the qualifications of equity while acknowledging the changing meaning of the "word".

 

[WorldWatcher]

My meaning is not to keep same genders from obtaining a document with the word "marriage" on it, but simply that the word itself, outside of the obvious religious implications, may have ran its course, become obsolete. It would seem to me that changing the laws to two different terms (per my brainstorm), would take no more time than the alternative.

Edited to add: I couldn't tell you who would object, part of the reason I posted it was to hear the objections. Heck, after thinking about it for awhile I might find an objection? Hey, it happens.

Sometimes it painful to actually try to think through something instead of regurgitating talking points.



>>>>

Nice. My suggestion fills all the qualifications of equity while acknowledging the changing meaning of the "word".

I'm concerned that you may have taken that the wrong way. It was an attempt at a complement in that you are willing to challenge yourself and examine an issue from multiple perspectives.

The highest form of humility (to me) is being able to joke about yourself and that's what I understood you to do with your edit.

My LOL post was not intended to offend.


>>>>