Active Users:666 Time:16/09/2026 01:20:39 AM
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the traditional benefits of marriage because the costs of extending them to same-sex "marriages" has forced them to be withdrawn".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 1851 Views
Nice satire, but it raises another point for me. - 07/08/2010 07:20:49 AM 1228 Views
One small problem... - 07/08/2010 08:02:34 AM 1228 Views
Re tax. - 07/08/2010 08:47:22 AM 1286 Views
That seems sensible to me. - 09/08/2010 08:13:26 PM 1174 Views
Not sure what you mean by "demoted." - 07/08/2010 03:50:02 PM 1297 Views
Nice. *NM* - 07/08/2010 08:58:20 AM 718 Views
That would only be appropriate if Christians wanted to ban secular unions of normal people. - 07/08/2010 11:51:29 AM 1484 Views
Hey, look! There was a point over there! - 07/08/2010 03:46:41 PM 1349 Views
Who else should make those decisions? - 07/08/2010 08:00:39 PM 1259 Views
I'd totally... - 08/08/2010 04:14:15 AM 1161 Views
I'd totally... - 08/08/2010 06:17:30 AM 1323 Views
You'd defend this idiot? *NM* - 08/08/2010 06:40:34 AM 595 Views
Indeed - 08/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 1255 Views
I used to think Joel was the biggest rambler on this site. I am seriously reconsidering. - 08/08/2010 05:24:56 AM 1260 Views
And my assessment of one poster as the most content-poor, non-contributing slug is unchanged - 08/08/2010 07:17:02 PM 1165 Views
Um, ok. *NM* - 10/08/2010 12:48:19 AM 601 Views
*Shakes Head* - 08/08/2010 06:23:47 AM 1135 Views
I highly doubt Cannoli is "scared" of homosexuals *NM* - 08/08/2010 06:29:54 AM 622 Views
Perhaps not in the physical sense. - 08/08/2010 06:35:53 AM 1250 Views
Re: Perhaps not in the physical sense. - 08/08/2010 06:46:56 AM 1186 Views
Gah! You did that on purpose! - 09/08/2010 01:05:13 AM 1129 Views
whoops *NM* - 09/08/2010 02:22:49 AM 556 Views
Re: *Shakes Head* - 08/08/2010 07:43:11 PM 1183 Views
This must be the "thought out reaction" I've heard so much about. - 08/08/2010 10:45:59 PM 1138 Views
You cannot be that stupid. - 11/08/2010 03:10:55 PM 1398 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 1339 Views
Incorrect. Genders are not treated equally. - 11/08/2010 07:53:00 PM 1522 Views
all you need is enough support to pass an amendment - 08/08/2010 02:46:08 PM 1121 Views
A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too - 08/08/2010 11:51:24 PM 1191 Views
And what is wrong with polygamy? *NM* - 09/08/2010 10:36:53 AM 617 Views
Did I say there was anything? - 09/08/2010 11:03:10 AM 1262 Views
Plolygamy and incest are not on the same level of bad. - 09/08/2010 11:00:07 AM 1210 Views
Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 11:36:26 AM 1151 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 11:46:42 AM 1122 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 12:07:22 PM 1236 Views
Not really - 09/08/2010 01:20:46 PM 1092 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 01:27:04 PM 1214 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 02:14:43 PM 1085 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 03:06:31 PM 1275 Views
Spoken like someone who does not have to insure an employee's six wives. - 11/08/2010 03:11:57 PM 1291 Views
... - 11/08/2010 03:22:50 PM 1159 Views
Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage - 09/08/2010 06:13:30 PM 1280 Views
Re: Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage - 10/08/2010 01:24:06 AM 1085 Views
Now I think about it, I'm not sure. - 10/08/2010 04:09:43 PM 1208 Views
Re: Now I think about it, I'm not sure. - 10/08/2010 06:12:39 PM 1133 Views
Great post Danny - 09/08/2010 08:22:27 PM 983 Views
It should be noted again... - 09/08/2010 08:59:32 PM 1244 Views
and how is it not a right? - 09/08/2010 09:19:12 PM 1157 Views
My definition of rights... - 09/08/2010 10:47:16 PM 1242 Views
mmm, but the UN has legally stated marriage as a right. - 10/08/2010 02:52:03 AM 1011 Views
+1 - 10/08/2010 03:11:22 AM 1303 Views
Article 16 probably not a great example - 10/08/2010 03:44:04 AM 1109 Views
You could just as easily move the emphasis... - 10/08/2010 04:08:46 AM 1267 Views
If we need a more specific resolution... - 10/08/2010 04:22:12 AM 1449 Views
It doesn't say a man can only marry a woman or vice versa, though. - 10/08/2010 04:24:17 AM 1120 Views
It also doesn't say they can - 10/08/2010 04:41:18 AM 1118 Views
You're missing the point. It's not about gay marriage. - 10/08/2010 11:20:59 AM 1155 Views
No, I got that, I'm pointing out how it does so - 10/08/2010 01:47:00 PM 1143 Views
To clarify for you - 10/08/2010 05:36:14 AM 1109 Views
The UNSC is actually the UN's enforcement body... - 10/08/2010 07:16:31 PM 1508 Views
What the UN thinks is *completely* worthless.... - 10/08/2010 06:43:15 PM 1073 Views
and the Constitution dictates nothing about marriage. *NM* - 10/08/2010 11:46:24 PM 577 Views
That means it is up to the people. And they say "No." *NM* - 11/08/2010 03:13:12 PM 588 Views
No, but it does dictate things about rights and discrimination - 12/08/2010 03:48:02 PM 1299 Views
The actual ruling on Prop 8 specifices marriage as a freedom, not a right. - 10/08/2010 12:02:17 AM 1229 Views
Out of curiosity, what would you say to using the Ninth Amendment, possibly in conjunction... - 10/08/2010 12:20:19 AM 1287 Views
I agree - 10/08/2010 06:11:19 PM 988 Views
Yeah but this can't be used to prove that it IS a right... - 10/08/2010 07:30:57 PM 1441 Views
Note it all you want... - 10/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 1003 Views
The best one yet. - 10/08/2010 07:59:17 PM 1245 Views
Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 10/08/2010 08:49:24 PM 1117 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 10/08/2010 09:03:11 PM 1207 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 11/08/2010 04:35:03 PM 1123 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 11/08/2010 04:41:23 PM 1258 Views
Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel - 11/08/2010 05:06:47 PM 1229 Views
Re: Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel - 11/08/2010 05:09:23 PM 1175 Views

Reply to Message