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the traditional benefits of marriage because the costs of extending them to same-sex "marriages" has forced them to be withdrawn".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
- 1529 Views
Nice satire, but it raises another point for me.
07/08/2010 07:20:49 AM
- 957 Views
That would only be appropriate if Christians wanted to ban secular unions of normal people.
07/08/2010 11:51:29 AM
- 1178 Views
Hey, look! There was a point over there!
07/08/2010 03:46:41 PM
- 991 Views
Who else should make those decisions?
07/08/2010 08:00:39 PM
- 938 Views
I'd totally...
08/08/2010 04:14:15 AM
- 904 Views
I'd totally...
08/08/2010 06:17:30 AM
- 1049 Views
I used to think Joel was the biggest rambler on this site. I am seriously reconsidering.
08/08/2010 05:24:56 AM
- 975 Views
And my assessment of one poster as the most content-poor, non-contributing slug is unchanged
08/08/2010 07:17:02 PM
- 888 Views
*Shakes Head*
08/08/2010 06:23:47 AM
- 857 Views
I highly doubt Cannoli is "scared" of homosexuals *NM*
08/08/2010 06:29:54 AM
- 502 Views
Perhaps not in the physical sense.
08/08/2010 06:35:53 AM
- 951 Views
Re: Perhaps not in the physical sense.
08/08/2010 06:46:56 AM
- 913 Views
Re: *Shakes Head*
08/08/2010 07:43:11 PM
- 904 Views
I still do not see how you think marriage is a "pointless" institution
08/08/2010 08:05:45 PM
- 1004 Views
No, I was referring to same-sex marriage. Real marriage hardly counts as a novelty. *NM*
11/08/2010 02:28:43 PM
- 415 Views
This must be the "thought out reaction" I've heard so much about.
08/08/2010 10:45:59 PM
- 850 Views
You cannot be that stupid.
11/08/2010 03:10:55 PM
- 1134 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
- 1013 Views
A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
08/08/2010 11:51:24 PM
- 878 Views
Plolygamy and incest are not on the same level of bad.
09/08/2010 11:00:07 AM
- 916 Views
Is that assumption valid?
09/08/2010 11:36:26 AM
- 869 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid?
09/08/2010 11:46:42 AM
- 852 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid?
09/08/2010 12:07:22 PM
- 963 Views
Spoken like someone who does not have to insure an employee's six wives.
11/08/2010 03:11:57 PM
- 993 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
09/08/2010 11:25:39 AM
- 881 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
09/08/2010 11:51:50 AM
- 843 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
09/08/2010 01:18:35 PM
- 938 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
09/08/2010 02:54:19 PM
- 956 Views
It should be noted again...
09/08/2010 08:59:32 PM
- 983 Views
and how is it not a right?
09/08/2010 09:19:12 PM
- 855 Views
My definition of rights...
09/08/2010 10:47:16 PM
- 982 Views
mmm, but the UN has legally stated marriage as a right.
10/08/2010 02:52:03 AM
- 749 Views
Article 16 probably not a great example
10/08/2010 03:44:04 AM
- 845 Views
You could just as easily move the emphasis...
10/08/2010 04:08:46 AM
- 970 Views
If we need a more specific resolution...
10/08/2010 04:22:12 AM
- 1156 Views
No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context
10/08/2010 05:25:57 AM
- 842 Views
Re: No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context
10/08/2010 03:04:39 PM
- 1158 Views
That's really a ridiculous stance, you do realize.
10/08/2010 03:23:02 PM
- 809 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
- 673 Views
Re: No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context
10/08/2010 03:46:56 PM
- 1036 Views
It doesn't say a man can only marry a woman or vice versa, though.
10/08/2010 04:24:17 AM
- 842 Views
I know, and that's been brought up before. But that's not my point.
10/08/2010 06:09:32 PM
- 837 Views
Re: I know, and that's been brought up before. But that's not my point.
10/08/2010 06:33:56 PM
- 770 Views
It's mentioned as a right in some SC decision quoted in that Walker opinion. *NM*
10/08/2010 06:51:13 PM
- 425 Views
To clarify for you
10/08/2010 05:36:14 AM
- 772 Views
The UNSC is actually the UN's enforcement body...
10/08/2010 07:16:31 PM
- 1217 Views
I'm not sure that I would call the Security Council the 'Enforcement Body'
10/08/2010 08:43:02 PM
- 818 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
- 1081 Views
What the UN thinks is *completely* worthless....
10/08/2010 06:43:15 PM
- 779 Views
Why don't YOU back up your assertion that the right to marry exists? *NM*
11/08/2010 03:16:02 PM
- 471 Views
The actual ruling on Prop 8 specifices marriage as a freedom, not a right.
10/08/2010 12:02:17 AM
- 922 Views
Out of curiosity, what would you say to using the Ninth Amendment, possibly in conjunction...
10/08/2010 12:20:19 AM
- 1000 Views
Note it all you want...
10/08/2010 06:43:53 AM
- 721 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
- 478 Views
The best one yet.
10/08/2010 07:59:17 PM
- 967 Views
Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
10/08/2010 08:49:24 PM
- 843 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
10/08/2010 09:03:11 PM
- 950 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
11/08/2010 04:35:03 PM
- 831 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
11/08/2010 04:41:23 PM
- 953 Views
Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel
11/08/2010 05:06:47 PM
- 928 Views
Re: Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel
11/08/2010 05:09:23 PM
- 917 Views