Author
|
Topic: Same Sex Marriage (Read 32729 times)
|
|
|
guesst
Enlightened
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 692
Ancient Shofixti Warrior
|
Hmmm, oddly enough I haven't chimed in on this one yet. Let me correct that now.
Some of what follows may echo what has already been said, so you'll have to forgive me. But let me start by giving you my bio so you know where I'm coming from. First off, I'm straight. I'm also married with a child. Next, I'm Christian, Mormon to be exact, but I pride myself on being in a religion that I can justify morally without falling back on the condescending "It's wrong in Gods eyes" argument that seems to pervade this question so often. Every point in my faith starts with a spiritual confermation that I can go back to if I need to, but I rarely do because everything just makes sense. That's my stand.
I do no support homosexual marrage. This is nothing personal against homosexuals. If I were to argue this point I would take a financial standpoint. Yes financial. As a father and husband I am at a economical disadvantage from an unmarried man with no children of my age. I am the primary support for my family. As such I feel I need the economical tax breaks that America gives to married people, and further to parents.
When a homosexual marrage takes place, are you telling me that one partner will choose to stay at home and be a "domestic engineer" to build a home for their growing family? I doubt it. Even if some homosexual couples choose to adopt, which is an entirely different can of worms, the majority of homosexual couples will esentally be two incomes with all the financial privlages of marrage. It creates an economic inequality, and that's not what the constitution of America was written for. Infact it was written with the opposite in mind and has succeeded so well that it has even overcome the prejedices (sp?) of it's writters.
With this in mind, I feel that marrage needs to be defined as more than "A union between one man and one woman," but should be expanded and re-written to become, "A contractual union between one man and one woman to the end of producing a household that will foster an environment for the rearing of children." Children, in this wording are mentioned, but not required, and it leaves plenty of room for intrepretation. However, I feel it would only better society if we were to define marrage in this way. This does not address the issue of children born out of wedlock and I feel that would need to be addressed, but does not pertain to the issue at hand.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chrispy
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 917
Vlik Dweller
|
Gays shouldnt have to concern themselves with the economy. I see in a way that everyone should have the same rights, and if the economy takes a hit, it has no right to blame gay couples. Heterosexual marriage 'jumped on the boat' first, but that doesnt mean that homosexual marriage should be left behind for the sake of taxes.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
FalconMWC
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1059
Avatar Courtesy of Slyrendro
|
But what he is saying is the homosexuals are "better fitted" to make money. Therefore, to keep it even, they should not get goverment money.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Chrispy
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 917
Vlik Dweller
|
It may seem like more married couples have kids than gay couples addopt, but that is something that cannot be assumed. The right still has to be there.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
FalconMWC
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1059
Avatar Courtesy of Slyrendro
|
Unless I am misunderstanding your message Chrispy, I think that your are misinterpreting my message. I will try again.
What I am saying is that mostly males are the provider of the family. (I don't mean to offend a woman that is, but I think the majority is men) Thus having two men allows the fmaily to make more money than a family of a man and a woman. But they still enjoy the same benifits. So that encourages gay because you can make a lot more money, especally if you do not have a kid and still get the taxes and stuff off from the goverment. This puts "regular" marriges at a disadvantage.
EDIT: I apoligize if I seem one-sided. I am trying ot be enven handed, but as some of you know, I have had some trouble with that in the past.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 09, 2004, 03:01:53 am by FalconMWC »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Chrispy
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 917
Vlik Dweller
|
Sorry for the confusion.
I did in fact understand your post. I was trying to say that though your post is correct, it should not be a factor. We cannot assume that gay couples will make more money. That should not deprive gays of the right to marry.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
FalconMWC
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1059
Avatar Courtesy of Slyrendro
|
We can check to see if gay couple make more money. Just average them and compare. Now true, their are not NEAR the amount of gay couples as "traditional" couples, but it is a start.
In my mind, That ALONE should not deprive gays the rights to marry. However there are otehr issues.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Chrispy
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 917
Vlik Dweller
|
The issues are more like assumptions though. Even if they are true, its just a statistic. It shouldnt affect peoples rights.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
