Demonizing Gay People

[cp]

Ok, you get your jollies worrying about pension benefits . . .

But it's unfair and absurd to deny couples the right to marry because there's a loophole in the system (which there isn't) that might see people abuse the system (which they haven't)

To explain the lack of a loophole:

You argue that because same-sex unions can't produce offspring there's no reason for the state to prohibit people who are related from entering into them (as there would be no chance for them to produce incestuous offspring, thereby being a drain on medical resources).

But there is a reason. Incestuous relationships are notorious for their abusiveness, manipulation, and instability. In almost every instance of incestuous coupling, there's records of child (spousal?) abuse, sexual coercion, physical abuse, and other criminal activities. (The only exceptions to this rule come in the form of relatives who did not know they were related and coupled by accident later in life - there was a story in Britain like that recently involving fraternal twins separated at birth).

Now assuming that the state has a vested interest in ensuring that its citizens aren't subjected to abuse and molestation, it would certainly preclude ANY incestuous couples from entering into marriage, whether their participants were of the same or opposite sex.

Furthermore, any persons (related or otherwise) who consensually enter into marriage for the express purpose of defrauding the pension system, or any other system, are crooks plain and simple. Their criminal behaviour in no way reflects the intentions of law-abiding same-sex couples and should not be taken into consideration when determining the legitimacy of same-sex unions in our society.

So: there IS a compelling state reason to prohibit incestuous couplings besides avoiding incestuous offspring, therefore there ISN'T any reason for you, J.J., to oppose them. Game. Set. Match.

[J. J.]

Ok, you get your jollies worrying about pension benefits . . .

But it's unfair and absurd to deny couples the right to marry because there's a loophole in the system (which there isn't) that might see people abuse the system (which they haven't)

No, it is a suggestion that when you are doing it, you close the loophole (and any like it) first.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As there are in some homosexual relationships.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've gone out of my way to say that this generally would not apply to homosexual couples.  I'm saying that there are some problems that must be fixed in order to prevent fraud and that fraud will way have a negative inmpact on society.

[/quote]
So: there IS a compelling state reason to prohibit incestuous couplings besides avoiding incestuous offspring, therefore there ISN'T any reason for you, J.J., to oppose them. Game. Set. Match.
[/quote]

Yes, if you are going to make the claim that all incestuous relationships are somehow abusive.  It becomes stereotyping, the kind ironically the right is accused of doing. 

I'm saying, yes, it can be done, but some of these things have to be worked out.

[cp]

It's not stereotyping when it's true.

Endless sociological and psychological studies have shown that in almost all cases, incestuous relationships are unhealthy and emotionally unstable for at least one of the partners involved. I mentioned the single accepted excepted to that rule in my previous post. Families have set boundaries and parameters in every society, the violation of which is subject to social obloquy and disapproval. In every viable human society, incest has been once of these boundaries (inviable societies being ones that have died out within a generation - think cults).

Your suggested parallel between categorical abuse in incestuous relationships and abuse in homosexual ones is just plain ignorant. There's no evidence that it's more prevalent in homosexual couplings.

Finally, why should homosexual couples be held to a higher standard than heterosexual ones? By all accounts there's fraud, manipulation, and disingenuous coupling going on between heterosexuals right now - some of it involving pension benefits, I'm sure - but to propose that all heterosexual marriages be banned or annulled is ridiculous.

And did you ever think that forcing loving, committed couples with families (and children, and pension benefits) to live out of wedlock causes even greater harm and detriment to society? All those extra insurance premiums and legal fees to ensure that partners are covered or have the right to visit their loved ones in the hospital. All that lost income spent on children's items that would have otherwise been covered by government-sponsored bonuses to parents. Those drag down a family's finances too. Such economic anchors are far more prevalent now than any potential pension fraud might be in the future - the suggestion of which I have never once heard before in any context anywhere, much less as a reason to oppose same-sex marriage.

P.S. sorry for my 'game set match' comment. It was childish.

[afleitch]

Finally, why should homosexual couples be held to a higher standard than heterosexual ones? By all accounts there's fraud, manipulation, and disingenuous coupling going on between heterosexuals right now - some of it involving pension benefits, I'm sure - but to propose that all heterosexual marriages be banned or annulled is ridiculous.

Good point

[muon2]

Let's have a separation of marriage and state.  The government has no right intervening in this aspect of society.

Those who argue for a federal marriage amendment make the same mistake that confuses government with society.  We need less laws, not more.  "Civil rights" for gays ought to be a non-issue.

If it wasn't for the benefits issue, I'd agree with this.  My basic concern is pension benefits, in regard to close relatives.

It runs much deeper than pensions. Federal and state law is packed with references that differentiate between married and unmarried persons. For the state to get out of marriage would be a complex legal and bureaucratic undertaking.

If one wanted to start at all, one would have to identify a thousand or so separate legal actions that could already be separately assigned from one person to another, such as inheritance or hospital visitation. In theory these could be bundled to provide the same automatic assignment that exists when a couple is married. Since these can already exist individually, there is no reason that they can't be bundled, but for the sheer number, and the cases that might need to be separated.

Those cases that remain are the many instances in law where a married person gains a special standing due to that relationship. Pensions are one example. Insurance coverage is another. A single person could not arbitrarily demand that another receive these benefits. Therefore extending these benefits can place a burden on the state, so there is an interest. It's the separation of these cases from the first group that creates the legal and bureaucratic difficulties.