Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage?

These benefits you speak of, that you deem worthy of discriminating in favour of the married over the single... what are they? I'm not seeing any.

 

Health benefits — lowers stress, depression, reduces risky behavior, more likely to be insured, better results after medical treatment, longer life expectancy

Financial — easier to build wealth, less likely to be in poverty, less likely to be on government aid,

It also makes homes more stable if the couple decides to adopt, have a child or has a child through a previous relationship.

Marriage has shown to increase “prosocial” behavior and puts down “roots” in the community.

And much much more
http://ftp.iza.org/dp998.pdf

Most of this requires a partner so a single person would share zero benefits even if the tax break you are so worried about was given to them (or removed from everyone).

 

you answered your own question....Elderly Homosexuals are no different than younger homosexuals...

 

same sex is not a marriage....they cannot procreate...

 

We do not, as a society, see marriage as a mechanism simply for procreation. Otherwise we would not consider marriages of the infertile or those past child-bearing age as valid and we most certainly do/.

 

That isn’t what I said. Read

 

Can you show where procreation is a requirement for marriage?

Do you wish to invalidate all elderly heterosexual unions? Or infertile heterosexual unions? Or heterosexual couples that will not have children?

Legally their marriages are just a valid as yours should you be so fortunate.

 

I think you missed the context of the question. Jolly is holding the position that no one should be married. He's not taken a "only heterosexuals who have children need marriage" position. He is asking if the tax break can be justified period, before the consideration of who should such a break apply to.

 

Sounds like allowing poly could make things even better.

 

Obviously, you cannot read what you quoted since he said "elderly HETEROsexual". Try answering the question without turning it into a strawman.

 

You have yet to show that marriage is only about procreation, or that procreation is a necessary part of marriage. Go back and actually answer post #1868.

 

Not exactly. I'm taking the position that marriage should have no relation to the state, giving special perks or obligations. I see it as a state/church sort of issue and one of freedom to contract. If people want to decide they are in a "spiritual union" or something, that's fine. If somebody else doesn't want to recognize it, that's also fine. They shouldn't get tax breaks or other perks single people don't get, and they shouldn't be presumed to have entered a contract with terms that are not clearly spelled out in a contract they signed (laws putting obligations on spouses that they may not be aware of).

Yes Heterosexual, homosexual, two people, many people, I don't care, and it shouldn't be anybody's business but those who want to decide they are in such a relationship. Freedom

As far as the church goes, I don't see why they should have any control whatsoever over if homosexuals can consider themselves "married". They definitely should have zero control over an civil benefits or obligations these couples should have. But I also don't think the state should have any power to direct the church on who they must or must not recognize as "married", which carries the concept of "spiritual union" with it.

And I don't see why the above shouldn't be acceptable to both same sex couples and homophobic churches. The same sex couple can simply find another religion or church that does recognize their "spiritual bond", etc.

 

My apologies for not being explicit. I was strictly talking in the context of legal marriage, as that is the only one that we can control and was the context that we all seem to be discussing.. Social/religious marriage will always be a subjective value as to its legitimacy.

They don't, and never had. Same sex and multiple marriage and other variations have always been among us and nothing the church has done has ever stopped them. Driven them underground maybe. But today, most religious recognize the difference between being married in the eyes of their God, and being married in the eyes of the government.

Agreed and so far they haven't, at least not in the US. Now I have heard that in some countries, a church is not allowed to hold a marriage ceremony unless legal papers are filed. Personally I find that wrong. My one wife and I were married long before we ever went and got the legal paperwork, and the only reason we did that was for the legal benefits. We didn't need them early one and spent many years without them.

It's only the fundamentalist of both sides that push for the other to recognize their definition of marriage. Most people are fine to keep the two separate.

 

You confuse requirement with encouragement. The reason for legal marriage along with what, at least, once was our societal norm was to ENCOURAGE and support and sanction the nuclear family whose main purpose is so vital and necessary to the survival of our species and societal wellbeing. There is no such need to do so for homosexual unions and behavior.

 

To what benefit to our species and it's survival is it to encourage and support and sanction homosexuality?

 

Homosexual couples have children from prior relationships and adopt — in some areas they actually adopt at rates almost ten times that of heterosexual couples.

This has nothing to do with the civil right of marriage however, which is a legal contract.

As long as any two heterosexuals can marry that are unable to naturally procreate the justification that this requirement applies to homosexual couples is based on an unequal premises and thus, unconstitutional.

Now if you would like to go and tell all elderly and infertile couples their marriages are dissolved we can talk — but I doubt you will have much support.

 

They adopt the unwanted children of heterosexual couples seems like a benefit, wouldn’t you say?

 

There are plenty of heterosexual couples wanting to adopt children into their nuclear family. THAT is something we should support even more.

 

So what?

Of course it does and why we encourage heterosexual marriage and the building of families it is VITAL and NECESSARY to our survival. There is NOTHING vital and necessary about homosexuality and homosexual marriages. And yes elderly and infertile couples can and do raise and or care for children in their nuclear families.

 

23,000 children age out of the foster care system each year. 20% of those will end up in poverty.

There are clearly not enough

Do you prefer a child become homeless vs going to a loving stable homosexual couple?

 

They age out they don't need parents anymore and I prefer those that have not aged out going to a loving nuclear family and support more efforts to do so. So what does that have to do with whether we as a society should encourage, support and sanction homosexuality.

 

Why should elderly and infertile couples be treated differently than homosexual couples? None have the ability to naturally procreate. Each group can take and care for children.

 

They age out because they have been unable to find a family.

Allowing two people to sign a legal contract is not an encouragement or sanction of that behavior. You are the one arguing that people should be denied the legal ability to enter into contract with one another based on requirements that are not part of the law.

 

Just a quick note. If you are going to talk about the foster care system and adoptions, make sure you are citing correct numbers. You may have without noting such, I can't check right now. But there is a segment of children in the foster care system that are not adoptable. So they cannot be considered in the idea of whether a child can be adopted or not.

 

I have numerous sources:
adoptuskids.org/meet-the-children/children-in-foster-care/about-the-children

nfyi.org/51-useful-aging-out-of-foster-care-statistics-social-race-media/amp/