There's a lot of ridiculous arguments here, but I'll focus on just one of them...
Legolas Send a noteboard - 11/08/2010 03:38:05 PM
Exactly. Given all the financial and legal benefits to such arrangements, it opens the door for massive amounts of fraud to cost people and the public. At least with such marriages for different sexes, there is a long-standing tradition backing up marriage that would curtail the freedom of such persons to participate in a normal relationship. With same-sex marriage, a piece of paper that creates a legal fiction of a partnership between two such people, there is no traditional or cultural impediment to each of them carrying on with the partner of his or her choice, and meanwhile transferring funds to avoid taxes, protecting coversations and transactions from testimony, gaining otherwise unauthorized residential or employment benefits and so on.
Considering that such an abuse of marriage is not a serious problem now (except perhaps in matters of immigration), it's rather unclear why it would become a problem in the future. After all, as you pointed out, everyone's allowed to get married as it is, including gay people, as long as it's to the opposite sex. So anyone who wants to get married for fraudulous purposes while carrying on with the partner of his or her choice, can do so as it is. And considering the relative rarity of homosexuality, and the amount of people who still have a problem with homosexuality, a fraudulous same-sex marriage would have the distinct disadvantage, compared to a fraudulous heterosexual marriage, of drawing attention. I'll give you points for originality, though, as I don't believe anyone's ever used the "but a mobster boss could marry his right-hand man so he can avoid having him witness against him!" argument to oppose same-sex marriage before...
And then there's the part where you mentioned "couples that will be deprived of the traditional benefits of marriage because the costs of extending them to same-sex "marriages" has forced them to be withdrawn". You do realize what kind of numbers we are talking about, yes? Gay people make up 5 to 10% of the population, and so far in the places where it's legal, gay couples are not getting married at a higher rate than straight couples or anything like that. As such, the increase in marriages and in people who are married and claim marriage benefits will be quite modest, certainly not of a kind to cause financial difficulties to those providing benefits to married couples.
Let's ban all Christian Marriage.
07/08/2010 06:36:13 AM
- 1533 Views
Nice satire, but it raises another point for me.
07/08/2010 07:20:49 AM
- 962 Views
That would only be appropriate if Christians wanted to ban secular unions of normal people.
07/08/2010 11:51:29 AM
- 1186 Views
Hey, look! There was a point over there!
07/08/2010 03:46:41 PM
- 995 Views
Who else should make those decisions?
07/08/2010 08:00:39 PM
- 946 Views
I'd totally...
08/08/2010 04:14:15 AM
- 911 Views
I'd totally...
08/08/2010 06:17:30 AM
- 1057 Views
I used to think Joel was the biggest rambler on this site. I am seriously reconsidering.
08/08/2010 05:24:56 AM
- 981 Views
And my assessment of one poster as the most content-poor, non-contributing slug is unchanged
08/08/2010 07:17:02 PM
- 894 Views
*Shakes Head*
08/08/2010 06:23:47 AM
- 864 Views
I highly doubt Cannoli is "scared" of homosexuals *NM*
08/08/2010 06:29:54 AM
- 504 Views
Perhaps not in the physical sense.
08/08/2010 06:35:53 AM
- 958 Views
Re: Perhaps not in the physical sense.
08/08/2010 06:46:56 AM
- 919 Views
Re: *Shakes Head*
08/08/2010 07:43:11 PM
- 910 Views
I still do not see how you think marriage is a "pointless" institution
08/08/2010 08:05:45 PM
- 1010 Views
No, I was referring to same-sex marriage. Real marriage hardly counts as a novelty. *NM*
11/08/2010 02:28:43 PM
- 418 Views
This must be the "thought out reaction" I've heard so much about.
08/08/2010 10:45:59 PM
- 854 Views
You cannot be that stupid.
11/08/2010 03:10:55 PM
- 1141 Views
There's a lot of ridiculous arguments here, but I'll focus on just one of them...
11/08/2010 03:38:05 PM
- 1018 Views
A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
08/08/2010 11:51:24 PM
- 885 Views
Plolygamy and incest are not on the same level of bad.
09/08/2010 11:00:07 AM
- 923 Views
Is that assumption valid?
09/08/2010 11:36:26 AM
- 876 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid?
09/08/2010 11:46:42 AM
- 858 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid?
09/08/2010 12:07:22 PM
- 968 Views
Spoken like someone who does not have to insure an employee's six wives.
11/08/2010 03:11:57 PM
- 999 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
09/08/2010 11:25:39 AM
- 887 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
09/08/2010 11:51:50 AM
- 849 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
09/08/2010 01:18:35 PM
- 944 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
09/08/2010 02:54:19 PM
- 963 Views
It should be noted again...
09/08/2010 08:59:32 PM
- 990 Views
and how is it not a right?
09/08/2010 09:19:12 PM
- 863 Views
My definition of rights...
09/08/2010 10:47:16 PM
- 989 Views
mmm, but the UN has legally stated marriage as a right.
10/08/2010 02:52:03 AM
- 754 Views
Article 16 probably not a great example
10/08/2010 03:44:04 AM
- 852 Views
You could just as easily move the emphasis...
10/08/2010 04:08:46 AM
- 977 Views
If we need a more specific resolution...
10/08/2010 04:22:12 AM
- 1160 Views
No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context
10/08/2010 05:25:57 AM
- 848 Views
Re: No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context
10/08/2010 03:04:39 PM
- 1162 Views
That's really a ridiculous stance, you do realize.
10/08/2010 03:23:02 PM
- 814 Views
The point is that marriage IS a right, one which cannot be denied based upon sexual orientation *NM*
10/08/2010 07:04:16 PM
- 678 Views
Re: No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context
10/08/2010 03:46:56 PM
- 1039 Views
It doesn't say a man can only marry a woman or vice versa, though.
10/08/2010 04:24:17 AM
- 852 Views
I know, and that's been brought up before. But that's not my point.
10/08/2010 06:09:32 PM
- 844 Views
Re: I know, and that's been brought up before. But that's not my point.
10/08/2010 06:33:56 PM
- 776 Views
It's mentioned as a right in some SC decision quoted in that Walker opinion. *NM*
10/08/2010 06:51:13 PM
- 429 Views
To clarify for you
10/08/2010 05:36:14 AM
- 777 Views
The UNSC is actually the UN's enforcement body...
10/08/2010 07:16:31 PM
- 1222 Views
I'm not sure that I would call the Security Council the 'Enforcement Body'
10/08/2010 08:43:02 PM
- 825 Views
The fact that it is capable of authorizing the use of military force makes it an enforcement body
10/08/2010 10:33:59 PM
- 1088 Views
What the UN thinks is *completely* worthless....
10/08/2010 06:43:15 PM
- 785 Views
Why don't YOU back up your assertion that the right to marry exists? *NM*
11/08/2010 03:16:02 PM
- 475 Views
The actual ruling on Prop 8 specifices marriage as a freedom, not a right.
10/08/2010 12:02:17 AM
- 930 Views
Out of curiosity, what would you say to using the Ninth Amendment, possibly in conjunction...
10/08/2010 12:20:19 AM
- 1006 Views
Note it all you want...
10/08/2010 06:43:53 AM
- 726 Views
No, they seek to expand the terms of the partnership. Homosexuals can & do get married normally *NM*
11/08/2010 03:14:25 PM
- 480 Views
The best one yet.
10/08/2010 07:59:17 PM
- 973 Views
Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
10/08/2010 08:49:24 PM
- 849 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
10/08/2010 09:03:11 PM
- 957 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
11/08/2010 04:35:03 PM
- 838 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
11/08/2010 04:41:23 PM
- 960 Views
Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel
11/08/2010 05:06:47 PM
- 936 Views
Re: Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel
11/08/2010 05:09:23 PM
- 924 Views