The looming war over gay marriage

[Father Time]

If anything as it stands now heteros get special rights, and government sweetheart deals when they get married, so either remove every government benefit from marraige and remove the state from it or give it to homos as well. I'd be fine with either choice.

Correction: people that produce offspring and bring stability get 'extra' rights. The gov 'benefits are to help ensure the country continues to grow its population.

When has that ever been an issue?

If you check neighborhoods and communities that have a lot of children where the people 'can' move, you will discover those places are very stable compared to similar neighborhoods without a lot of children

.
?

Lotsa kids in the ghetto and it's all fucked up.


Only old folk in the Foothills, and it's damned nice and peaceable.

1Therefore, it is beneficial to the gov for heteros to marry and produce children.

You can't be serious here...

And since when are rights determined by how many kids you pop out? Hell, by your 'reasoning', we should be giving the Mormons and the Mexicans anything they ask for.

Don't forget the Catholics.

 

[logical4u]

If anything as it stands now heteros get special rights, and government sweetheart deals when they get married, so either remove every government benefit from marraige and remove the state from it or give it to homos as well. I'd be fine with either choice.

Correction: people that produce offspring and bring stability get 'extra' rights. The gov 'benefits are to help ensure the country continues to grow its population. If you check neighborhoods and communities that have a lot of children where the people 'can' move, you will discover those places are very stable compared to similar neighborhoods without a lot of children. Therefore, it is beneficial to the gov for heteros to marry and produce children.
The arguement of all married people not having children could be valid if that were happening over a large percentage of the population. It isn't. It is more beneficial for the gov to include that small percentage, than place unenforceable qualifiers in place.
Those for homosexual marriage cannot demonstrate with facts any similar benefit to the gov for those 'extra' rights. If they could, it would not matter what any other citizens felt, they would also be given 'extra' rights.

Gays can always adopt or use sperm/egg donation. Oh and how do couples who don't marry fit (and have kids) into your view of marraige.

Sorry, with 'gov-run health care, that will not be covered, therefore, it is more practical to give marriages to couples that can produce 'naturally' for the least cost. And in case you did not read the above closely: the gov will not discern the small percentage of couples that do not have children. They would be to hard (and costly) to sort out, and if a law was passed for just 'them', it would be to hard to enforce (we were waiting before starting a family).

My view of marriage was not asked for, I was trying to point out why the gov had some financial, and social stakes in heterosexual marriage. Since those for homosexuals want to point out that heterosexual marriage is about special benefits, I was simply agreeing and pointing out obvious reasons the gov would want 'heterosexual marriage' as compared to 'homosexual marriage'. One produces resources, the other 'takes' resources. The gov wants to be the main 'taker' (in the form of resources known as taxes).

When I ask supporters of homosexual marriages to provide some 'real' examples of the benefits 'most' homosexual marriages would provide, I hear crickets chirping. Then the subject is changed to another tangent. The closest reason I have heard is: because I waaant it.

 

[Father Time]

Correction: people that produce offspring and bring stability get 'extra' rights. The gov 'benefits are to help ensure the country continues to grow its population. If you check neighborhoods and communities that have a lot of children where the people 'can' move, you will discover those places are very stable compared to similar neighborhoods without a lot of children. Therefore, it is beneficial to the gov for heteros to marry and produce children.
The arguement of all married people not having children could be valid if that were happening over a large percentage of the population. It isn't. It is more beneficial for the gov to include that small percentage, than place unenforceable qualifiers in place.
Those for homosexual marriage cannot demonstrate with facts any similar benefit to the gov for those 'extra' rights. If they could, it would not matter what any other citizens felt, they would also be given 'extra' rights.

Gays can always adopt or use sperm/egg donation. Oh and how do couples who don't marry fit (and have kids) into your view of marraige.

Sorry, with 'gov-run health care, that will not be covered

Then they pay for it themselves.

And in case you did not read the above closely: the gov will not discern the small percentage of couples that do not have children. They would be to hard (and costly) to sort out, and if a law was passed for just 'them', it would be to hard to enforce (we were waiting before starting a family).

I meant the couples who have kids, are in a stable relationship and choose not to marry.

My view of marriage was not asked for, I was trying to point out why the gov had some financial, and social stakes in heterosexual marriage. Since those for homosexuals want to point out that heterosexual marriage is about special benefits, I was simply agreeing and pointing out obvious reasons the gov would want 'heterosexual marriage' as compared to 'homosexual marriage'. One produces resources, the other 'takes' resources. The gov wants to be the main 'taker' (in the form of resources known as taxes).

They can also take orphans off the state's hands.

When I ask supporters of homosexual marriages to provide some 'real' examples of the benefits 'most' homosexual marriages would provide, I hear crickets chirping. Then the subject is changed to another tangent. The closest reason I have heard is: because I waaant it.

Homosexual couples can produce a child, yes it's by no means traditional but it can be done.

 

[logical4u]

If anything as it stands now heteros get special rights, and government sweetheart deals when they get married, so either remove every government benefit from marraige and remove the state from it or give it to homos as well. I'd be fine with either choice.[/quote

Correction: people that produce offspring and bring stability get 'extra' rights. The gov 'benefits are to help ensure the country continues to grow its population.

When has that ever been an issue?

If you check neighborhoods and communities that have a lot of children where the people 'can' move, you will discover those places are very stable compared to similar neighborhoods without a lot of children

.
?

Lotsa kids in the ghetto and it's all fucked up.

Only old folk in the Foothills, and it's damned nice and peaceable.

.

maybe you missed that part that said "where the people 'can' move". Poverty is not nice anywhere.

1Therefore, it is beneficial to the gov for heteros to marry and produce children.

You can't be serious here...

And since when are rights determined by how many kids you pop out? Hell, by your 'reasoning', we should be giving the Mormons and the Mexicans anything they ask for.

I agreed with the idea of 'heteros', getting special rights and giving some reasons for it, now you want to disagree with me on that too? I am amused.

 

[JD_2B]

Correction: people that produce offspring and bring stability get 'extra' rights. The gov 'benefits are to help ensure the country continues to grow its population. If you check neighborhoods and communities that have a lot of children where the people 'can' move, you will discover those places are very stable compared to similar neighborhoods without a lot of children. Therefore, it is beneficial to the gov for heteros to marry and produce children.
The arguement of all married people not having children could be valid if that were happening over a large percentage of the population. It isn't. It is more beneficial for the gov to include that small percentage, than place unenforceable qualifiers in place.
Those for homosexual marriage cannot demonstrate with facts any similar benefit to the gov for those 'extra' rights. If they could, it would not matter what any other citizens felt, they would also be given 'extra' rights.

Gays can always adopt or use sperm/egg donation. Oh and how do couples who don't marry fit (and have kids) into your view of marraige.

Sorry, with 'gov-run health care, that will not be covered, therefore, it is more practical to give marriages to couples that can produce 'naturally' for the least cost. And in case you did not read the above closely: the gov will not discern the small percentage of couples that do not have children. They would be to hard (and costly) to sort out, and if a law was passed for just 'them', it would be to hard to enforce (we were waiting before starting a family).

That was kinda the point- They don't want "special" health care treatments.. They just want the equal opportunity that married couples have, on the same plan. Gays are no less earning or deserving of the same coverage that straights have, just as they are no less deserving of having the right to adopt children, rather than being barricaded, as is how it currently stands.

My view of marriage was not asked for, I was trying to point out why the gov had some financial, and social stakes in heterosexual marriage. Since those for homosexuals want to point out that heterosexual marriage is about special benefits, I was simply agreeing and pointing out obvious reasons the gov would want 'heterosexual marriage' as compared to 'homosexual marriage'. One produces resources, the other 'takes' resources. The gov wants to be the main 'taker' (in the form of resources known as taxes).

In the case you are speaking, it could just as easily be argued that Gays would pick up where straights failed, through adoption, or even IVF. And no I am not arguing that ANYONE should be entitled the right to free or community sponsored IVF.. But to be able to become foster parents, and have the same first dibs on adopting a child, YES. And to be legally allowed to marry and have the same fiscal rewards for being married, as heteros are, YES.

When I ask supporters of homosexual marriages to provide some 'real' examples of the benefits 'most' homosexual marriages would provide, I hear crickets chirping. Then the subject is changed to another tangent. The closest reason I have heard is: because I waaant it.

I have not seen anyone make such an argument on here.

Simply put- Gays should not be treated as if they are any less deserving of the same rights that any other citizen is deserving of, based solely on the sex organs of the person they love.
This anti-gay argument has effectively reduced gays to the general societal views of vagrants. The only difference- Vagrants can still marry each other.

 

[dilloduck]

Gays can always adopt or use sperm/egg donation. Oh and how do couples who don't marry fit (and have kids) into your view of marraige.

Sorry, with 'gov-run health care, that will not be covered, therefore, it is more practical to give marriages to couples that can produce 'naturally' for the least cost. And in case you did not read the above closely: the gov will not discern the small percentage of couples that do not have children. They would be to hard (and costly) to sort out, and if a law was passed for just 'them', it would be to hard to enforce (we were waiting before starting a family).

That was kinda the point- They don't want "special" health care treatments.. They just want the equal opportunity that married couples have, on the same plan. Gays are no less earning or deserving of the same coverage that straights have, just as they are no less deserving of having the right to adopt children, rather than being barricaded, as is how it currently stands.

My view of marriage was not asked for, I was trying to point out why the gov had some financial, and social stakes in heterosexual marriage. Since those for homosexuals want to point out that heterosexual marriage is about special benefits, I was simply agreeing and pointing out obvious reasons the gov would want 'heterosexual marriage' as compared to 'homosexual marriage'. One produces resources, the other 'takes' resources. The gov wants to be the main 'taker' (in the form of resources known as taxes).

In the case you are speaking, it could just as easily be argued that Gays would pick up where straights failed, through adoption, or even IVF. And no I am not arguing that ANYONE should be entitled the right to free or community sponsored IVF.. But to be able to become foster parents, and have the same first dibs on adopting a child, YES. And to be legally allowed to marry and have the same fiscal rewards for being married, as heteros are, YES.

When I ask supporters of homosexual marriages to provide some 'real' examples of the benefits 'most' homosexual marriages would provide, I hear crickets chirping. Then the subject is changed to another tangent. The closest reason I have heard is: because I waaant it.

I have not seen anyone make such an argument on here.

Simply put- Gays should not be treated as if they are any less deserving of the same rights that any other citizen is deserving of, based solely on the sex organs of the person they love.
This anti-gay argument has effectively reduced gays to the general societal views of vagrants. The only difference- Vagrants can still marry each other.

When vagrants have children all they called immi-grants ?

 

[logical4u]

Gays can always adopt or use sperm/egg donation. Oh and how do couples who don't marry fit (and have kids) into your view of marraige.

Sorry, with 'gov-run health care, that will not be covered, therefore, it is more practical to give marriages to couples that can produce 'naturally' for the least cost. And in case you did not read the above closely: the gov will not discern the small percentage of couples that do not have children. They would be to hard (and costly) to sort out, and if a law was passed for just 'them', it would be to hard to enforce (we were waiting before starting a family).

That was kinda the point- They don't want "special" health care treatments.. They just want the equal opportunity that married couples have, on the same plan. Gays are no less earning or deserving of the same coverage that straights have, just as they are no less deserving of having the right to adopt children, rather than being barricaded, as is how it currently stands.

My view of marriage was not asked for, I was trying to point out why the gov had some financial, and social stakes in heterosexual marriage. Since those for homosexuals want to point out that heterosexual marriage is about special benefits, I was simply agreeing and pointing out obvious reasons the gov would want 'heterosexual marriage' as compared to 'homosexual marriage'. One produces resources, the other 'takes' resources. The gov wants to be the main 'taker' (in the form of resources known as taxes).

In the case you are speaking, it could just as easily be argued that Gays would pick up where straights failed, through adoption, or even IVF. And no I am not arguing that ANYONE should be entitled the right to free or community sponsored IVF.. But to be able to become foster parents, and have the same first dibs on adopting a child, YES. And to be legally allowed to marry and have the same fiscal rewards for being married, as heteros are, YES.

When I ask supporters of homosexual marriages to provide some 'real' examples of the benefits 'most' homosexual marriages would provide, I hear crickets chirping. Then the subject is changed to another tangent. The closest reason I have heard is: because I waaant it.

I have not seen anyone make such an argument on here.

Simply put- Gays should not be treated as if they are any less deserving of the same rights that any other citizen is deserving of, based solely on the sex organs of the person they love.
This anti-gay argument has effectively reduced gays to the general societal views of vagrants. The only difference- Vagrants can still marry each other.

"Marriage" has been between men and women (I am avoiding the whole poly vs mon thing) for as long as there has been marriage. Any homosexual has the "right" to marry a person of the opposite sex. They (the people that support homosexual marriage, not all homosexuals do) want to re-define "marriage to fit 'their lifestyle'. It is not about "equal rights". It is about taking a lifestyle that is "tolerated" and forcing people, legally to "accept" it. That would make them "thought police".

As far as children go, there is no proof that a homosexual 'couple' makes better parents than heterosexual parents. If you want to use the arguement that ANY parent is better than no parent, I would concede that point. I am just not seeing a lot of children (that 'made it') raised with homosexual influences that are proud of that particular part of their background, or even willing to share that 'knowledge' at all. Again, I am waiting for someone that 'supports' homosexual marriage to demonstrate how changing the definition of marriage and legitimizing homosexuality improves or benefits society.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

, I am waiting for someone that 'supports' homosexual marriage to demonstrate how changing the definition of marriage and legitimizing homosexuality improves or benefits society.

Demonstrate that allowing xtian, islamic, hindu, or interracial marriage improves society.

 

[JD_2B]

Sorry, with 'gov-run health care, that will not be covered, therefore, it is more practical to give marriages to couples that can produce 'naturally' for the least cost. And in case you did not read the above closely: the gov will not discern the small percentage of couples that do not have children. They would be to hard (and costly) to sort out, and if a law was passed for just 'them', it would be to hard to enforce (we were waiting before starting a family).

That was kinda the point- They don't want "special" health care treatments.. They just want the equal opportunity that married couples have, on the same plan. Gays are no less earning or deserving of the same coverage that straights have, just as they are no less deserving of having the right to adopt children, rather than being barricaded, as is how it currently stands.



In the case you are speaking, it could just as easily be argued that Gays would pick up where straights failed, through adoption, or even IVF. And no I am not arguing that ANYONE should be entitled the right to free or community sponsored IVF.. But to be able to become foster parents, and have the same first dibs on adopting a child, YES. And to be legally allowed to marry and have the same fiscal rewards for being married, as heteros are, YES.

When I ask supporters of homosexual marriages to provide some 'real' examples of the benefits 'most' homosexual marriages would provide, I hear crickets chirping. Then the subject is changed to another tangent. The closest reason I have heard is: because I waaant it.

I have not seen anyone make such an argument on here.

Simply put- Gays should not be treated as if they are any less deserving of the same rights that any other citizen is deserving of, based solely on the sex organs of the person they love.
This anti-gay argument has effectively reduced gays to the general societal views of vagrants. The only difference- Vagrants can still marry each other.

"Marriage" has been between men and women (I am avoiding the whole poly vs mon thing) for as long as there has been marriage. Any homosexual has the "right" to marry a person of the opposite sex. They (the people that support homosexual marriage, not all homosexuals do) want to re-define "marriage to fit 'their lifestyle'. It is not about "equal rights". It is about taking a lifestyle that is "tolerated" and forcing people, legally to "accept" it. That would make them "thought police".

I disagree. I believe that this is about taking a religious view of what is right and wrong, and applying it on a national basis, which is unconstitutional. In fact, this very wording of the constitution was without merit, and should be ratified. A man may not genetically even be a man. HE only has the name of a man, and the genitalia, if he ever had a sex change. The visuals of it all are what are not appealing to you. You have to get through the emotional aspect of how the visual of two apparent men being together affects you. Scientifically speaking, and legally speaking, all gay men would have to do to have STANDING, is to try to marry someone with a penis who lacks a Y chromosome. Then we could get the judgment in front of the Supremes, who really cannot argue that a person with an XX chromosome is anything but a biological female. Since DNA testing for gender also leads to privacy and HIPAA violations, then, and probably only then, will it ever come to pass that it is a Constitutional right.

As far as children go, there is no proof that a homosexual 'couple' makes better parents than heterosexual parents. If you want to use the arguement that ANY parent is better than no parent, I would concede that point. I am just not seeing a lot of children (that 'made it') raised with homosexual influences that are proud of that particular part of their background, or even willing to share that 'knowledge' at all. Again, I am waiting for someone that 'supports' homosexual marriage to demonstrate how changing the definition of marriage and legitimizing homosexuality improves or benefits society.

And our response is asking YOU how it NEEDS to benefit society to be worthwhile to those taking part?

I also have known many children living in abusive, alcoholic, drug ridden homes.. Alcoholism is a major issue in this country, which causes children a lot of psychological damage in their later years, too. Does this mean that we should bring back prohibition? I don't think so...

Not everyone can send out the portrait of perfection Cleaver Family Christmas photo.. Everyone is raised differently, and almost every family has skeletons in the closet that they are either ashamed to talk about, or just lacking bragging rights compared with others. THAT is acceptable. THAT is NORMAL.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

A man may not genetically even be a man. HE only has the name of a man, and the genitalia, if he ever had a sex change.

.... :facepalm:

They can't do that operation right now, JD. F2Ms do not have male genitalia.


Do you ever know what you're talking about?

 

[logical4u]

, I am waiting for someone that 'supports' homosexual marriage to demonstrate how changing the definition of marriage and legitimizing homosexuality improves or benefits society.

Demonstrate that allowing xtian, islamic, hindu, or interracial marriage improves society.

Did you read any of the previous posts? If not, please do. I know one of the liberal methods for stopping an arguement is to ignore everything a person has said and start at the beginning. If the person did not say what you want to hear, repeat, etc.
A brief summary: people of the opposite sex that marry (doesn't matter what color, race, religion) are very likely [that means the marriages that produce children, naturally (greener), far outnumber the marriages that produce no children] to produce offspring (they have done studies for billions of your tax dollars to prove this), without artificial means (just the people of the opposite sex getting naked together). This means that married heteros are more likely to produce more children (for lower costs), that would be beneficial to the gov (future taxpayers). Also, those couples tend to work to improve their communities (to make a safe and stable atmosphere for the children), this is also beneficial to the gov (other families want to move there (that means more tax revenue).

I will ask again: what part of homosexual marriage is BENEFICIAL for the gov?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Demonstrate that more children is necessarily better for a society.

I will ask again: what part of heterosexual marriage is BENEFICIAL for the gov?

And since when do we decide rights based on how useful people are to the State? A very peculiar brand of statism, you adhere to.

 

[JD_2B]

, I am waiting for someone that 'supports' homosexual marriage to demonstrate how changing the definition of marriage and legitimizing homosexuality improves or benefits society.

Demonstrate that allowing xtian, islamic, hindu, or interracial marriage improves society.

Did you read any of the previous posts? If not, please do. I know one of the liberal methods for stopping an arguement is to ignore everything a person has said and start at the beginning. If the person did not say what you want to hear, repeat, etc.
A brief summary: people of the opposite sex that marry (doesn't matter what color, race, religion) are very likely [that means the marriages that produce children, naturally (greener), far outnumber the marriages that produce no children] to produce offspring (they have done studies for billions of your tax dollars to prove this), without artificial means (just the people of the opposite sex getting naked together). This means that married heteros are more likely to produce more children (for lower costs), that would be beneficial to the gov (future taxpayers). Also, those couples tend to work to improve their communities (to make a safe and stable atmosphere for the children), this is also beneficial to the gov (other families want to move there (that means more tax revenue).

I will ask again: what part of homosexual marriage is BENEFICIAL for the gov?

Your original question was "how does homosexual marriage benefit the community".. followed by an "and why would people want to move to a majority gay community?"...

PS- Living your life for the government's benefit, and making rules and laws that only work to benefit the government, is indeed a form of self-inflicted slavery.

PSS- You have liberals on this board, who want very badly to see gays getting married, from a social rights standpoint.. and you also have republicans who believe in small government, and neither group worth its weight in salt will lend you deaf ear to what you are proposing. As a libertarian, I would suggest that you not contribute to the government's ability or, in some self inflicted cases, RIGHTS, to be like a dictatorship. I will also hope that you say something to save face, quickly, or simply bow out now, and keep your dignity intact.. =) Much love..

 

[Lizzy Massacre]

"Marriage" has been between men and women (I am avoiding the whole poly vs mon thing) for as long as there has been marriage. Any homosexual has the "right" to marry a person of the opposite sex. They (the people that support homosexual marriage, not all homosexuals do) want to re-define "marriage to fit 'their lifestyle'. It is not about "equal rights". It is about taking a lifestyle that is "tolerated" and forcing people, legally to "accept" it. That would make them "thought police".

My question reagrding "marriage being between just a man and a woman" is what is so different about two individuals of the same sex getting married? I could understand if we were talking about [I can't believe I'm resorting to this...] marriages involving children, relatives, animals, etc. but just because each half of the couple is of the same gender we should deny them the right to officially be recognized as a couple and make a life together that the government recognizes?

I could mention how this is no different than the battle over interracial marriage that was only about 50-60 years ago [unbelievable] but then you would probably just rebuttal with, "but they were still a man and a woman marrying!" True, but at that time, even that notion wasn't enough because they were of a different race. Now the debate is about gender - which isn't that different from an aspect of a CONSENTING ADULT, like race.

So, in your opinion you thinks that homosexuals want to redefine marriage. Maybe our definitions of marriage differ but I know my definition is a lot more broad than what genitalia each partner has. But if full equality for all Americans means redefining YOUR definition of marriage then I guess that will just have to take place. That's what this country was founded upon...using the knowledge we gain to make better change for our free society.

And yes, it IS about equal rights. If it wasn't then we wouldn't be asking FOR THE EXACT SAME THING that heterosexuals already have. BTW, even if gay marriage was legal doesn't mean you have to accept it. I know some people that are against the idea of marriage in general - but obviously marriage is still legal regardless of what some may think. Legality doesn't mean that you have to accept something, so enough with the "thought police" nonsense.

As far as children go, there is no proof that a homosexual 'couple' makes better parents than heterosexual parents. If you want to use the arguement that ANY parent is better than no parent, I would concede that point. I am just not seeing a lot of children (that 'made it') raised with homosexual influences that are proud of that particular part of their background, or even willing to share that 'knowledge' at all. Again, I am waiting for someone that 'supports' homosexual marriage to demonstrate how changing the definition of marriage and legitimizing homosexuality improves or benefits society.

There may be no proof that a homosexual couple are better parents than a heterosexual couple but there is research to support the notion that they do just as good of a job. There are numerous studies that state that homosexual parents can raise children that are just as well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents. The only difference between the two is that the children raised by the homosexual parents may have a tendency to be more understanding of others that are different from themselves.

Reagrding the children that you have come in contact with [nevermind the fact that you have yet to meet ALL of the children raised by homosexual parents] that "are not proud of that part of their background; or that they are unwilling to share that knowledge about themselves" did you ever consider the many reasons as to why that may be? If I knew that I went to school where there existed a majority of people who did not approve of gay people, especially during the time of adolescence when one craves to fit in, then I would understand a teen's reluctance to not disclose their family situation. It has nothing to do with being ashamed or disliking one's parenting situation but instead with how to rectify what your parents look like with how society feels about their relationship.

Why does gay marriage HAVE to benefit society? As someone has mentioned prior, there are obviously more heterosexuals than homosexuals and thus the "benefits" that society "needs" will always exist. Why can't people just get married to express their love in a fashion that is recognized by the rest of society? But if you must insist on a list of benefits then here's some: financial [no matter how small the homosexual population is they will still contribute to MANY of the same financial avenues that heterosexual couples take advantage of] and adopting children [there are many homosexual couples out there that would love to provide healthy homes for foster children but due to their relationship not being recognized they are denied this obvious, positive advantage for the children. I believe that until homosexual marriage is recognized then these couples won't see a lot of their rejection disappear regarding adopting children - and having children means spending money!].

 

[logical4u]

Demonstrate that more children is necessarily better for a society.

I will ask again: what part of heterosexual marriage is BENEFICIAL for the gov?

And since when do we decide rights based on how useful people are to the State? A very peculiar brand of statism, you adhere to.

Isn't that why abortion is legal? The 'state' decided who was more valuable.
If no more children are born, there will eventually be no 'state'.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

It's legal because it's not illegal, you twit. You fail to grasp how the law works in this country.

 

[logical4u]

It's legal because it's not illegal, you twit. You fail to grasp how the law works in this country.

"Demonstrate that more children is necessarily better for a society.

I will ask again: what part of heterosexual marriage is BENEFICIAL for the gov?

And since when do we decide rights based on how useful people are to the State? A very peculiar brand of statism, you adhere to."

You asked the question, I just pointed out one example of when the state permitted "unequal rights" (in this case, the right to life) for a large number of citizens.
Since you brought it up: is there a specific law stating that marriage is between a man and woman? (Because under your definition of legal, you wouldn't be able to stop two beings from getting married; there may be no law 'prohibiting' it.)

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I will ask again: what part of heterosexual marriage is BENEFICIAL for the gov?

Simplifying inheritance. Hey, that goes for gay marriage, too! Gee, L, you do a good job of arguing in favour of gay marriage!

 

[Qball]

And yes, it IS about equal rights. If it wasn't then we wouldn't be asking FOR THE EXACT SAME THING that heterosexuals already have. BTW, even if gay marriage was legal doesn't mean you have to accept it. I know some people that are against the idea of marriage in general - but obviously marriage is still legal regardless of what some may think. Legality doesn't mean that you have to accept something, so enough with the "thought police" nonsense.

But that's just it, you already have the same exact thing heterosexuals have: the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Because gays and lesbians would want to enjoin in a legalized same-sex marriage doesn't mean they're lacking equal rights; they're lacking desirable policy that reflects their preferences.

As a policy matter, you can make all the subjective arguments you want and see what happens, but when the issue trying to be resolved in court, you have to focus on the law and the constitution. In that regard, the law is equal the way it is now.

 

[bodecea]

And yes, it IS about equal rights. If it wasn't then we wouldn't be asking FOR THE EXACT SAME THING that heterosexuals already have. BTW, even if gay marriage was legal doesn't mean you have to accept it. I know some people that are against the idea of marriage in general - but obviously marriage is still legal regardless of what some may think. Legality doesn't mean that you have to accept something, so enough with the "thought police" nonsense.

But that's just it, you already have the same exact thing heterosexuals have: the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Because gays and lesbians would want to enjoin in a legalized same-sex marriage doesn't mean they're lacking equal rights; they're lacking desirable policy that reflects their preferences.

As a policy matter, you can make all the subjective arguments you want and see what happens, but when the issue trying to be resolved in court, you have to focus on the law and the constitution. In that regard, the law is equal the way it is now.

Pretty funny. Did you know that the Virginia lawyers arguing in front of the Supreme Court said almost the same thing you did...that blacks and whites have equal rights...neither is allowed to marry outside their race. How'd that argument work for them?