Freethought & Rationalism Archive

tribalbeeyatch · 04-25-2003, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Melkor
In my home state, there was recently a fuss about a state law that required the state to provide same-sex benefits to state employees who had partners.

The law was recently repealed, and guess what the Republican excuse was? "It's providing special treatment to a group based solely on sexual orientation, so it is discriminatory."

Obviously the particular wording of these sorts of benefits varies from place to place, but just to add another data point: I work at a university that offers domestic partner benefits for same-sex partners, and their definition of a domestic partner says nothing about sexual orientation. It only requires that the partners share the same gender, home and expenses (for at least six months) and that they not be in more than one domestic partnership simultaneously. In this case, I wonder if the "Republican excuse" would work. I'm thinking that it wouldn't.

beyelzu · 04-25-2003, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TealVeal
While this is interesting, I fail to see how marriage (in the context of promoting children) has any bearing on hospital visits and ensuring your will is carried out properly and not contested by your hateful family members after you die. Should infertile couples not be allowed to marry? That is what Dsouza is implying if he feels only marriages which can lead to children should be allowed. It also does not follow that allowing a couple to get married who cannot have kids negatively affects the ability of another couple to have kids. He is also opperating under the assumption that it is any business of the state to encourage reproductive behavior, nowhere do I see that in the constitution.

read dsouza for yourself. I dont care to argue it here.

I will cover one thing though. Homosexuals cant in general reproduce. Most heterosexual couples can. This is especially true historically speaking when marriages started out young before divorce became prevalent. Anthropologically speaking, marriage of some form exists in all cultures. You think maybe there is a reason for that? Which was more or less his point. Anyway. I dont agree with him completely on this because I am on the fence when it comes to gay marriage. Like I said in my other post.

Dsouza doesnt argue for marriage on a legal basis. That wouldnt have had a whole lot of impact for me if he had.

tribalbeeyatch · 04-25-2003, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beyelzu
I used to be in support of gay marriage.

while I do support other rights for gays and lesbians such as participating in the military, I am on the fence on gay right to marriage. For years I supported gay right to marriage. I read an argument by Dsouza that kind of changed my mind. He argued that marriage is an institution for the raising of children ( this view certainly has anthropological support) and that the government should encourage it for this reason. I guess following this reasoning marriage should still be an option for gay and lesbian couples that want to have children.

What an utter load of crap. My wife and I really didn't want to get married, but after some number of years of living together we found ourselves in a situation where the legal benefits of marriage were just too great for us to hold out any longer. We will likely never have children, so that doesn't enter into the picture for us. As far as I'm concerned, marriage is at its minimum only a contract entitling two people to rights with respect to eachother. Gender doesn't factor into these rights, and so there is no good reason to deny them to people based upon their gender.

TealVeal · 04-25-2003, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beyelzu
read dsouza for yourself. I dont care to argue it here.

What is the name of his book? Articles?

Quote:

I will cover one thing though. Homosexuals cant in general reproduce. Most heterosexual couples can. This is especially true historically speaking when marriages started out young before divorce became prevalent. Anthropologically speaking, marriage of some form exists in all cultures. You think maybe there is a reason for that? Which was more or less his point. Anyway. I dont agree with him completely on this because I am on the fence when it comes to gay marriage. Like I said in my other post.

Just because other cultures do things one way does not mean we should do them that way as well. Many cultures had slaves, yet we freed ours. Should we have kept them just because others have had them? Surely they had them for a reason.

Quote:

Dsouza doesnt argue for marriage on a legal basis. That wouldnt have had a whole lot of impact for me if he had.

Call it what you want, what I want is everything that I would get if I were straight and nothing more.

Melkor · 04-25-2003, 04:25 PM

Why should a government encourage or discourage any couple to produce offspring? How is it even their business to be encouraging or discouraging such things in private, voluntary relationships?

TealVeal · 04-25-2003, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Melkor
Why should a government encourage or discourage any couple to produce offspring? How is it even their business to be encouraging or discouraging such things in private, voluntary relationships?

The only specious justification I can think of is that if the government encourages the creation of children then the nation will stay around longer. Similar to how the catholic and mormon churchs encourage large families so their ranks can grow larger.
I do not find any merit in such an argument though.

Melkor · 04-25-2003, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TealVeal
The only specious justification I can think of is that if the government encourages the creation of children then the nation will stay around longer. Similar to how the catholic and mormon churchs encourage large families so their ranks can grow larger.
I do not find any merit in such an argument though.

Well no... the state that does such a thing is basically acting only out of self-interest.... something that makes a government at its very best a dangerous one.

TealVeal · 04-25-2003, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Melkor
Well no... the state that does such a thing is basically acting only out of self-interest.... something that makes a government at its very best a dangerous one.

Which is why I disagree with it.

It's a justification I have heard from people.

Fr.Andrew · 04-25-2003, 05:28 PM

(Beyelzu): "Homosexuals cant in general reproduce."

(Fr Andrew): Sigh....

beyelzu · 04-25-2003, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fr.Andrew
(Beyelzu): "Homosexuals cant in general reproduce."

(Fr Andrew): Sigh....

well, gee thanks for that insightful response.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-25-2003, 04:25 PM	#25
Melkor Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: The Void Posts: 396	Why should a government encourage or discourage any couple to produce offspring? How is it even their business to be encouraging or discouraging such things in private, voluntary relationships?

04-25-2003, 05:28 PM	#29
Fr.Andrew Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Betsy's Bluff, Maine Posts: 540	(Beyelzu): "Homosexuals cant in general reproduce." (Fr Andrew): Sigh....

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.