Author Topic: Getting the government out of marriage (Read 3115 times)

lazs2 · « **Reply #30 on:** February 13, 2004, 08:22:25 AM »

the lawyers are licking their chops at the prospect of twice as many divorces but....

it might backfire... when both parties are men, or... women... who is the court gonna screw over? They might even be forced to be fair and negate the need for lawyers (you can say lawyers here can't you?).

DoctorYO · « **Reply #31 on:** February 13, 2004, 10:45:41 AM »

My views are simple, call it marriage call it union whatever...

If the government gives tax breaks etc.. to traditionally married people then they got to give the same to gays and lesbos.

The problem here is the benefits given by the union of marriage..

Not the actual act.. or name...

In the military I used to argue with cohorts. They would say; hey we deserve money per spouse per child etc.. and I would say, do they don the kevlar and fight.. (well no) then why is the government paying them?. (to exist wtf)

There was no comment.. How can you with a straight face... trust me the married man does not fight harder on the battlefield, if anything he fights weaker for self preservation but yet govt rewards them for their family status... that’s not equal opportunity..

I used to watch soldiers the same rank as me get twice the pay because of marital/children status. They would spit children out like a assembly line. These same soldiers would have their sorry wives contact the commander to try to get out of field duty.

I was single at the time pulled double the amount of field duty as them.. it was an unfair and biased environment... I threatened to skip the chain of command and report this bull ****e to congress/press; they gave me 3 day pass per field duty served thereafter to shut me up... im not a boat rocker so I accepted to take one for the team..

Still crap if you ask me.. Im very partial on this topic..

See its economic that’s the problem whether its welfare(California has got to love this), military, or marital status govt should bud the hell out or make the same opportunities for all..

Btw before any snide or dumb arse chastisement comes of this im not gay, but I don’t persecute those who are.. That’s their business, my business is my business.. gay people pay taxes and should not be discriminated against..

And note to qualify for whatever benefits it has to be human to human relations not goats trees etc.. (got a laugh out of this one very nice..)

2 cents

DoctorYo

miko2d · « **Reply #32 on:** February 13, 2004, 10:54:48 AM »

Holden McGroin: What if you are adopting a child? Does that affect others?

A current guardian of a child should decide the best adoptive parents for that child. It certainly does not affect anyone else.

miko

Spitter · « **Reply #33 on:** February 13, 2004, 11:05:16 AM »

Well, I'm new here, but I'm gonna jump into this here fray....check6!

Seems simple to me. If you got a problem with gay marriage.... don't marry a guy man (or woman).

This is one more of a long list of victimless crimes, like prostitution and gambling, that the government should get its nose out of, IMHO.

I don't see how one can argue that the judges in an adoption case suddenly don't have any discriminatory powers just because the marriage is now 'legal'?
If my wife and I decide to adopt a child, we wouldn't automatically get custody just because we're married. Or am I missing the point of the argument there? The decision to adopt should not be based on wether the adoptive parents are married or not anyway, but on how well they would raise the child. Period.

It's like a lot of stupid blue laws that are still on the books all over the states. No beer on sunday, or not before noon. Hell, here in OK (the buckle of the f&^%$in' bible belt) I can't even get a real beer at the grocery store. (Limited to 3.2% alcohol, which kills the taste of most beers, surprisingly enough). The culture shock moving here is worse than when I moved to Germany.

Anyway, got my asbestos underwear on, so flame away.

Cheers,
Sptter

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #34 on:** February 13, 2004, 11:29:23 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by miko2d
Holden McGroin: What if you are adopting a child? Does that affect others?

A current guardian of a child should decide the best adoptive parents for that child. It certainly does not affect anyone else.

miko

I don't believe this....

It effects the child! The child is someone else!

Certainly there are gay couples who are better parents than many straight couples but if full equality before the law is granted regardless of the 'style' of marraige, then discrimination by a judge, who is acting as the legal guardian, would not be able to consider the 'style' of marraige in his decision.

If we decide that full rights are warrented except allow some discretion in the case of adoption then the relationship would not have equal status.

stiehl · « **Reply #35 on:** February 13, 2004, 11:42:08 AM »

If a gay couple can provide a good home for a child, what's the problem? Maybe those kids wont go around screaming "Let's string dem homos up!" It's not as if they're going to turn the kids gay or something.

miko2d · « **Reply #36 on:** February 13, 2004, 11:43:43 AM »

Holden McGroin: ...but if full equality before the law is granted regardless of the 'style' of marraige, then discrimination by a judge, who is acting as the legal guardian, would not be able to consider the 'style' of marraige in his decision.

If a judge acting as a guardian believes that it would be in the best interests of a child to be adopted by a homosexual couple rather than a heterosexual one among those willing to adopt, he will not be constrained to discriminate against the homosexual couple and act contrary to child's interests. He could certainly consider any factors whatsoever.

That's what we would want to do - the guardian deciding on the spot what's in the child's best interests rather than some bureaucrats many miles and years away deciding in advance.

miko

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #37 on:** February 13, 2004, 12:08:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by miko2d
If a judge acting as a guardian believes that it would be in the best interests of a child to be adopted by a homosexual couple rather than a heterosexual one among those willing to adopt, he will not be constrained to discriminate against the homosexual couple and act contrary to child's interests. He could certainly consider any factors whatsoever.

That's what we would want to do - the guardian deciding on the spot what's in the child's best interests rather than some bureaucrats many miles and years away deciding in advance.

miko

So you honestly believe that if a judge decided in favor of a hetero couple, in an otherwise entirely equal competition, then there would be no legal recourse for the gay couple blaming the judge for his homophobic decision.... okey dokey...

The only possible reason for the above decision is obviously the judges perceptions that there may be some strife with the way society views the child's adoptive parents.... and if thats okay, then the gay union will be legally unequal to the hetero union.

Kieran · « **Reply #38 on:** February 13, 2004, 12:50:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by stiehl
If a gay couple can provide a good home for a child, what's the problem? Maybe those kids wont go around screaming "Let's string dem homos up!" It's not as if they're going to turn the kids gay or something.

Prove it. Let's see if you can.

Spitter · « **Reply #39 on:** February 13, 2004, 12:59:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
Prove it. Let's see if you can.

Prove what? That a gay couple won't 'turn' a child gay? As opposed to simply raising a child with an open mind and hopefully more tolerant attitude of those who may have a different view?

Look, this is the real world, you're gonna find jerks anywhere you go. But you can't make a judgement about everyone based on a few whackos. If we did that, we would have outlawed most evangelical forms of religion years ago too.

It seems only fair to give gay people, couples, groups, or otherwise the opportunity to raise children, get whatever limited benefits are available for insurance, or whatever.

Yeah, there's the possiblility that a gay couple might scream discrimination if they are turned down for an adoption in favor of a hetero couple. Then again, how many children are out there waiting for adoption now that could find a home with an otherwise loving family if the courts allowed gay couples to adopt?

Where is the greatest good likely to come from?

Think about it.

Cheers,
Spitter

miko2d · « **Reply #40 on:** February 13, 2004, 01:02:34 PM »

Holden McGroin: So you honestly believe that if a judge decided in favor of a hetero couple, in an otherwise entirely equal competition, then there would be no legal recourse for the gay couple blaming the judge for his homophobic decision.... okey dokey...

They could file an appeal - with another judge. They could "blame" the judge. I believe it is not possible to sue a judge.

The only possible reason for the above decision is obviously the judges perceptions that there may be some strife with the way society views the child's adoptive parents....

An it would be entirely correct. Everything else being equal, the child should be placed with a heterosexual couple to learn about the family life that he/she will be likely to lead him/herself.
Women are different than men and a family composed of a man and a woman presents a totally different dynamics than a homo-sexual couple. A male child would learn from his father how to deal with women and a girl would learn from her mother how to handle men. They would learn the role of a husband of a woman and the role of a wife of a man.

Of course for a homosexual child the homosexual couple would be much preferable - the parents would understand the child much better and he/she them.

That is my opinion only - the one I would exercise if I were a judge.

miko

Kieran · « **Reply #41 on:** February 13, 2004, 01:04:26 PM »

If someone wants to make an absolute statement, I'd simply like absolute proof. So much gets stated as if fact, and won't be examined. I'm curious about this definitive proof, if it exists.

fd ski · « **Reply #42 on:** February 13, 2004, 01:14:38 PM »

What funk said. Abolish all tax breaks and legislation dealing with the marriage. I see no point of government "certifing" and paying for people's delusions

Then if you want to get married, it's between you, your "other half" or whatever animal you fancy, and your religious type.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #43 on:** February 13, 2004, 01:18:04 PM »

So Miko, we both agree that all else being equal that it would be better for a child to develop in a traditional family.

Therefore, as judges you and I would consider a gay union to not have equal rights to a traditional couple, as we would both then practice discrimination (choice) (all else being equal) in favor of the hetero couple and against the gay couple.

This is of course not to say that a gay couple cannot be good parents, it is just to state that society does have a preference.

I have yet to figure out how to identify a gay child.... I do not believe that if I were deciding the future of an adoptee that I would identify him/her as such in order to make the decision.

I know it is only a portion of the larger issue, but it is certainly an important issue to clarify when public policy is being changed. The law of unintended consequenses always rears it head in these situations.

miko2d · « **Reply #44 on:** February 13, 2004, 02:55:42 PM »

Holden McGroin: So Miko, we both agree that all else being equal that it would be better for a child to develop in a traditional family.

For non-homosexual child - yes.

Therefore, as judges you and I would consider a gay union to not have equal rights to a traditional couple, as we would both then practice discrimination (choice) (all else being equal) in favor of the hetero couple and against the gay couple.

That's the major misconception which is the basis of liberal propaganda (not that I am accusion you of it, just as a side-note). It is based on the loose and wrong definition of terms that have very specific meanings.

They have equal rights - but not equal opportunities.

The homosexual people have equal right but not equal opportunity to show a heterosexual child how to handle him/herself in a kind of family he/she is likely to marry into.
Just like a deaf person has an equal right to teach singing but not an equal opportunity to do that well.

As for discrimination, humans always discriminate whenever we make any choice on any matter. It's the law that is not supposed to discriminate.

This is of course not to say that a gay couple cannot be good parents, it is just to state that society does have a preference.

Society's preferences do not matter here. It's the child's best interests that matter - the preferences his guardians have. With good guardians, the homosexuals will be at a natural disadvantage while adopting. Just like disabled or poor or uneducated people would be at a disadvantage while adopting.

The society does not re-write the laws of nature.

miko