Active Users:398 Time:08/04/2026 11:39:09 PM
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the traditional benefits of marriage because the costs of extending them to same-sex "marriages" has forced them to be withdrawn".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.
Reply to message
Let's ban all Christian Marriage. - 07/08/2010 06:36:13 AM 1761 Views
Nice satire, but it raises another point for me. - 07/08/2010 07:20:49 AM 1144 Views
One small problem... - 07/08/2010 08:02:34 AM 1155 Views
Re tax. - 07/08/2010 08:47:22 AM 1200 Views
That seems sensible to me. - 09/08/2010 08:13:26 PM 1096 Views
Not sure what you mean by "demoted." - 07/08/2010 03:50:02 PM 1225 Views
Nice. *NM* - 07/08/2010 08:58:20 AM 662 Views
That would only be appropriate if Christians wanted to ban secular unions of normal people. - 07/08/2010 11:51:29 AM 1412 Views
Hey, look! There was a point over there! - 07/08/2010 03:46:41 PM 1225 Views
Who else should make those decisions? - 07/08/2010 08:00:39 PM 1163 Views
I'd totally... - 08/08/2010 04:14:15 AM 1076 Views
I'd totally... - 08/08/2010 06:17:30 AM 1241 Views
You'd defend this idiot? *NM* - 08/08/2010 06:40:34 AM 549 Views
Indeed - 08/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 1174 Views
I used to think Joel was the biggest rambler on this site. I am seriously reconsidering. - 08/08/2010 05:24:56 AM 1179 Views
And my assessment of one poster as the most content-poor, non-contributing slug is unchanged - 08/08/2010 07:17:02 PM 1077 Views
Um, ok. *NM* - 10/08/2010 12:48:19 AM 550 Views
*Shakes Head* - 08/08/2010 06:23:47 AM 1053 Views
I highly doubt Cannoli is "scared" of homosexuals *NM* - 08/08/2010 06:29:54 AM 587 Views
Perhaps not in the physical sense. - 08/08/2010 06:35:53 AM 1142 Views
Re: Perhaps not in the physical sense. - 08/08/2010 06:46:56 AM 1095 Views
Gah! You did that on purpose! - 09/08/2010 01:05:13 AM 1050 Views
whoops *NM* - 09/08/2010 02:22:49 AM 507 Views
Re: *Shakes Head* - 08/08/2010 07:43:11 PM 1089 Views
This must be the "thought out reaction" I've heard so much about. - 08/08/2010 10:45:59 PM 1032 Views
You cannot be that stupid. - 11/08/2010 03:10:55 PM 1320 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 1254 Views
Incorrect. Genders are not treated equally. - 11/08/2010 07:53:00 PM 1421 Views
all you need is enough support to pass an amendment - 08/08/2010 02:46:08 PM 1020 Views
A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too - 08/08/2010 11:51:24 PM 1064 Views
And what is wrong with polygamy? *NM* - 09/08/2010 10:36:53 AM 557 Views
Did I say there was anything? - 09/08/2010 11:03:10 AM 1182 Views
Plolygamy and incest are not on the same level of bad. - 09/08/2010 11:00:07 AM 1129 Views
Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 11:36:26 AM 1050 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 11:46:42 AM 1046 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 12:07:22 PM 1155 Views
Not really - 09/08/2010 01:20:46 PM 1019 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 01:27:04 PM 1143 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 02:14:43 PM 1011 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 03:06:31 PM 1191 Views
Spoken like someone who does not have to insure an employee's six wives. - 11/08/2010 03:11:57 PM 1183 Views
... - 11/08/2010 03:22:50 PM 1083 Views
Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage - 09/08/2010 06:13:30 PM 1193 Views
Re: Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage - 10/08/2010 01:24:06 AM 1000 Views
Now I think about it, I'm not sure. - 10/08/2010 04:09:43 PM 1119 Views
Re: Now I think about it, I'm not sure. - 10/08/2010 06:12:39 PM 1007 Views
Great post Danny - 09/08/2010 08:22:27 PM 883 Views
It should be noted again... - 09/08/2010 08:59:32 PM 1167 Views
and how is it not a right? - 09/08/2010 09:19:12 PM 1060 Views
My definition of rights... - 09/08/2010 10:47:16 PM 1161 Views
mmm, but the UN has legally stated marriage as a right. - 10/08/2010 02:52:03 AM 927 Views
+1 - 10/08/2010 03:11:22 AM 1230 Views
Article 16 probably not a great example - 10/08/2010 03:44:04 AM 1023 Views
You could just as easily move the emphasis... - 10/08/2010 04:08:46 AM 1171 Views
If we need a more specific resolution... - 10/08/2010 04:22:12 AM 1357 Views
It doesn't say a man can only marry a woman or vice versa, though. - 10/08/2010 04:24:17 AM 1037 Views
It also doesn't say they can - 10/08/2010 04:41:18 AM 1039 Views
You're missing the point. It's not about gay marriage. - 10/08/2010 11:20:59 AM 1053 Views
No, I got that, I'm pointing out how it does so - 10/08/2010 01:47:00 PM 1052 Views
To clarify for you - 10/08/2010 05:36:14 AM 1034 Views
The UNSC is actually the UN's enforcement body... - 10/08/2010 07:16:31 PM 1417 Views
What the UN thinks is *completely* worthless.... - 10/08/2010 06:43:15 PM 978 Views
and the Constitution dictates nothing about marriage. *NM* - 10/08/2010 11:46:24 PM 532 Views
That means it is up to the people. And they say "No." *NM* - 11/08/2010 03:13:12 PM 539 Views
No, but it does dictate things about rights and discrimination - 12/08/2010 03:48:02 PM 1221 Views
The actual ruling on Prop 8 specifices marriage as a freedom, not a right. - 10/08/2010 12:02:17 AM 1147 Views
Out of curiosity, what would you say to using the Ninth Amendment, possibly in conjunction... - 10/08/2010 12:20:19 AM 1208 Views
I agree - 10/08/2010 06:11:19 PM 904 Views
Yeah but this can't be used to prove that it IS a right... - 10/08/2010 07:30:57 PM 1303 Views
Note it all you want... - 10/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 904 Views
The best one yet. - 10/08/2010 07:59:17 PM 1158 Views
Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 10/08/2010 08:49:24 PM 1027 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 10/08/2010 09:03:11 PM 1134 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 11/08/2010 04:35:03 PM 1038 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 11/08/2010 04:41:23 PM 1173 Views
Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel - 11/08/2010 05:06:47 PM 1143 Views
Re: Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel - 11/08/2010 05:09:23 PM 1090 Views

Reply to Message